ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HOME DEPARTMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Police Reform

John Howell: What steps she has taken to reform the police.

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that we have scrapped national targets, improved police accountability, reformed pay and conditions, abolished bureaucracy, set up the National Crime Agency and College of Policing and brought in elected police and crime commissioners. Those are the most radical reforms in the history of policing.

John Howell: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will she also confirm that crime has fallen to the lowest level on record?

Theresa May: Again, I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that crime is down on both the reported measures of recorded crime and the crime survey. Recorded crime is down by more than 10% under this Government, and that is backed up by the independent crime survey, which shows that crime has halved since 1995 and is indeed at its lowest level since the survey began in 1981.

Stephen Twigg: Has the Home Secretary had an opportunity to look at Lord Stevens’ report, which was published last week? In it, he says that the police are in danger of
	“beating a retreat from the beat.”
	Is it not time for us to reaffirm the importance of neighbourhood policing and the wider social justice purpose of policing?

Theresa May: The figures show that the proportion of police on the front line has gone up under this Government.

Philip Davies: The Home Secretary will know that I am a strong supporter of the police, but I hope she will bear in mind the lack of confidence that exists in the way that complaints about the police are investigated. For the public to have confidence in the police, it is important that complaints are properly
	investigated. I have some serious issues in west Yorkshire about how a particular case has been dealt with. Will she look again at how West Yorkshire police investigates complaints about its own police officers?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of ensuring that complaints against the police are dealt with properly and the concern that members of the public often have about the police investigating themselves. That is precisely why we are giving extra resources and powers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In future, the IPCC, rather than the police themselves, will investigate serious and sensitive complaints against the police. I am pleased to say that for the other complaints that will remain with the police at local level, many police and crime commissioners are looking at how they can introduce a degree of independent oversight or consideration of those complaints.

Barbara Keeley: Greater Manchester police is constantly having to reform because its numbers have been cut by more than 400 since 2010. For the next 12 weeks, our local police and 150 specialist officers are being deployed to control a very small protest against the development of shale gas at Barton Moss. I am concerned that the police response to what is a small protest is complete overkill and very costly and that crime could soar in my constituency given that our diminished force is now being diminished even more.

Theresa May: I am pleased to say that crime in the Greater Manchester area is down by 9%. The hon. Lady raises the issue of how a particular protest is being policed by Greater Manchester police. That of course is an operational matter, which is entirely for the chief constable and officers of Greater Manchester police.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that the Government are taking firm action to ensure that police forces accurately report crime statistics?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Home Office does ensure that there are rules about what particular crimes should be recorded. This is a matter that will be looked at, and is looked at, by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary. Under our new arrangements, the police and crime commissioners have, in at least one case, taken action. In Kent, the PCC asked HMIC to come in and look at the recording of crime to see whether there were any problems and to ensure that lessons were learned.

Jack Dromey: In an unprecedented step commissioned by the Opposition and a royal commission in all but name, Lord Stevens reported last week with the most comprehensive analysis in half a century of British policing. He sounds the warning bell that the Government’s reforms, cuts to the front line—10,460—and partnership working risk returning our police service to a discredited model of reactive policing. Does the Home Secretary agree with Lord Stevens and does she support his recommendation that there should be a guaranteed level of neighbourhood policing? It is what works and it is what local people want.

Theresa May: Of course, Lord Stevens produced a number of recommendations in his report and I am happy to say that the Government have put a number of them in place through all the reforms we have been making—reforms that have, I might say, been opposed at every stage by those on the Labour Front Bench.

Illegal Drugs

Robin Walker: What steps she is taking to tackle the supply of illegal drugs.

David Amess: What steps she is taking to tackle the supply of illegal drugs.

Norman Baker: We are committed to tackling the supply of illegal drugs in the UK and overseas. Action to restrict drug supply is a priority for the police and the new National Crime Agency. The coalition Government’s new serious and organised crime strategy emphasises the importance of tackling the organised crime that is associated with the drugs trade.

Robin Walker: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that it is vital that the police target resources to crack down on the supply of drugs and will he therefore welcome the success of Operation Silence, recently launched by West Mercia police to target drugs in Worcester? Would he agree with the local police officer who said:
	“To be as determined and tenacious as our drug dealers is morally the right thing to do”?

Norman Baker: Yes, I do agree with that. I am pleased to hear that robust action is being taken to damage that trade in my hon. Friend’s area and elsewhere in the country. I agree that visible law enforcement activity can be effective in restricting the supply of drugs and I am pleased to see the partnership in West Mercia and Warwickshire to steer drug misusers into treatment.

David Amess: Will the Minister join me in congratulating the Border Force and the National Crime Agency on their recent seizure of 850 kg of cocaine and does he agree that that shows that our approach to securing borders and tackling organised crime is paying dividends?

Norman Baker: I congratulate the National Crime Agency and Border Force on that seizure, which is believed to be the largest cocaine seizure in Britain for more than two years. It is a good example of the benefits that intelligence sharing and partnerships between law enforcement agencies can bring about in disrupting drug traffickers and other criminals. That is a key element in our efforts to tackle organised and serious crime.

Andrew Gwynne: If tackling illegal drugs is a priority for his Government, can the Minister explain to the House why police seizures of drugs fell by 9% in the past year to the lowest level since 2005?

Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman might also reflect on the fact that drug use is at its lowest level since 1996. The number of drug offences in 2012-13 was also down by 9%, so we are clearly making significant progress in these matters.

Paul Flynn: Are not the Government adding to the supply of illegal drugs by criminalising a relatively low-harm drug, khat? That action will drive a wedge of antagonism between the police and two already marginalised communities. Is not the experience that every drug that is banned has an increase in its use and supply?

Norman Baker: No, that last point is not true at all. Some of the action we have taken on so-called legal highs, for example, has been very successful in driving down the use of those substances. As for khat, the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to exchange views with me at great length in the Select Committee on Home Affairs last week and I refer him to the comments I made on that occasion.

Andrew Selous: Can the Minister assure me that when new drugs or legal highs are discovered, he will take swift action? We do not want inordinate delay due to research, because of the harm done to people.

Norman Baker: I agree. We have a very good early warning system in this country, which is perhaps further ahead than those elsewhere in Europe. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that as a consequence of the action we have been keen to see occur, last week we saw a week of action from the police, the National Crime Agency, Border Force and others that led to 39 arrests and the seizure of thousands of pounds of cash, a firearm and 9 kg of substances from a head shop in Kent.

Stephen Pound: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), does the Minister personally agree that khat should be reclassified as an illegal drug?

Norman Baker: I am tempted to say that I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago and at great length in the Home Affairs Committee. I went through the careful procedure that led the Home Secretary to conclude that the matter should be dealt with in the way that she dealt with it. That matter was decided long before I was a Minister in this Office.

Online Crime

Stephen Mosley: What steps she is taking to tackle online crime.

James Brokenshire: The Government are taking a range of steps to combat online crime. They include significantly strengthening law enforcement’s capabilities through the creation of the national cybercrime unit, the establishment of specialist regional policing teams and training 5,000 police officers in digital investigation skills.

Stephen Mosley: Investigating and preventing online crime often requires specialist technical skills. Will the National Crime Agency be able to bring in non-police specialists, to ensure that it has access to the widest range of technical skills to tackle cybercrime?

James Brokenshire: My hon. Friend makes an important point on the need for specialist capabilities in the new national cybercrime unit, and indeed in the National Crime Agency. The NCA has established a specials programme to encourage people to volunteer to provide specialist knowledge. I do not know whether my hon. Friend, who has a strong background in IT, is making his case for being a special in the National Crime Agency, but that is certainly something that we are seeking to encourage.

Nick Smith: The Olympics were overseen by police Operation Podium to stop online criminal ticket touting. Will the Minister look into working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to make the rugby world cup an event of national significance, and to stop real fans being ripped off?

James Brokenshire: I think the hon. Gentleman will be aware that ticketing fraud has been looked at by colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and Operation Podium was a great success for the Metropolitan police. The economic crime unit in the National Crime Agency is very focused on combating all forms of fraud. Certainly, we will continue to reflect on the need to take firm action on all fraud, wherever it occurs.

Immigration: Romania and Bulgaria

Nigel Mills: What assessment she has made of the expected level of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria between 2014 and 2018.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend will know that we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee on that question, and it advised us that making an estimate was not practical because of the number of variables, so we have not done so.

Nigel Mills: I am grateful for that answer. Having seen the numbers last week for the increase in migrants from the EU, does the Minister still believe that we can get total net migration down to the tens of thousands in this Parliament without having some restrictions on immigration by Romanians and Bulgarians next year?

Mark Harper: If my hon. Friend looked closely at the net migration statistics last week, he will have seen that what was interesting about them was not only the reduction in emigration by European Union nationals, but the fact that the increase in migration from the European Union involved people from not eastern Europe, or Romania and Bulgaria, but some of the southern European states, reflecting the weakness in their economy and the strength of ours.

Keith Vaz: Yesterday was the national day of Romania, celebrated in Bucharest, and also in White Hart Lane, where a young, talented
	Romanian, Vlad Chiriches, was man of the match. Is it still the Government’s position, as set out on the website in Bucharest, that we want Romanians to come to this country to live and work, provided that they do not claim benefits? How many members of the Government support the retention of the restrictions?

Mark Harper: Of course, since 2007, Romanians and Bulgarians have been able to come to Britain to study, if they are self-sufficient, or to work in a skilled occupation, where they have asked for permission to do so. All that is happening at the end of the year is that the general restrictions are being lifted. Of course, if they want to come here to work and contribute, they are very welcome to do so; the changes set out last week by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary make it clear that we do not want them coming here just to claim benefits. I think that those reforms are welcome and are supported by Government Members.

Mark Pritchard: I congratulate the Government and the Minister on getting non-EU immigration figures down. I want to be helpful to him. He will know that the respected think-tank Migration Watch UK has predicted that between 30,000 and 70,000 Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants will come to the UK every year for five years. What figures, within those parameters, does he favour?

Mark Harper: As I said, we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee. I have seen a range of forecasts. I have seen the Migration Watch UK one, forecasts from the two countries concerned, which are much lower, and other forecasts that are much higher. The fact that there is such a range of forecasts from independent commentators demonstrates how sensible the Government’s decision was not to join in.

Kevin Barron: Three million Bulgarians have left their country to work in other countries over the last few years, because they have had the right to access 15 European countries. Is not a lot of the rhetoric that we have heard recently just scaremongering, following on from the disgraceful situation in the Eastleigh by-election? [Interruption.] I see a Member squinting; in that by-election, it was said that 3.1 million Bulgarians—more than half the population of Bulgaria—would be coming here in January next year. Why does the Minister not publish the actual number of Bulgarians who have come here to work in the past few years, so that we do not have this rhetoric running around the media?

Mark Harper: I wish that I could control the rhetoric running around the media, but unfortunately I cannot. Today I did an interview with the BBC in which I was more or less told that there is no problem, which was interesting, because, as I gently pointed out, it is running an entire week of programmes on the subject. That suggests it has a strange sense of priorities. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point seriously, the Government have been clear that if people want to come here to work and contribute, as Romanians and Bulgarians have done since 2007, that is absolutely fine. The changes we made last week are about ensuring that people do not come here to claim benefits. It is also worth noting that 79% of the new jobs created since the Government came to power have gone to British citizens.

Julian Brazier: Although I welcome the measures that the Government have taken on benefits, which will have an effect, are not the concerns about immigration from Romania and Bulgaria really just the tip of a wider problem? With much of southern and eastern Europe still heading into recession, tolerance of the free movement of people is quite close to reaching its natural end.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is why our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week that we very much want to look at free movement and how we negotiate future accession arrangements for large countries. He set out a range of things we might want to consider, other than just time limits—for example, relative income levels in countries—which I think would have great merit.

David Hanson: The Minister did not really answer the question from the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), so let me give him another go. Given that figures published last week show that net migration rose to 182,000, from 167,000, over the previous year, before the impact of any Romanian and Bulgarian immigration in January, does he think that the target, as set out in the Prime Minister’s solemn manifesto pledge, of having a net migration in the “tens of thousands,” to quote the hon. Member for Amber Valley, by May 2015 will be met—yes or no?

Mark Harper: When the right hon. Gentleman’s party was in power, net migration reached 2.1 million. I should also point out, to help the shadow Home Secretary, who was challenged on this yesterday by Andrew Neil, that most of that immigration was from countries outside the European Union. There was a large bar chart showing that on the television screen, but she denied what is reality.

Access to Benefits

Andrew Turner: What steps she has taken to restrict access to benefits for immigrants.

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend will have noted the steps set out last week by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to tighten up the benefits system and ensure that those coming to Britain do so to work and contribute, rather than to take out of the country.

Andrew Turner: A thought-provoking article on migration published last week by Civitas shows that the British sense of fairness dictates that there should be some link between what people put into the welfare state and what they get out of it. Does my hon. Friend agree that in the case of new immigrants there is very little link at all, and does that not need to be looked at?

Mark Harper: My hon. Friend is spot on. A number of the changes we set out last week do exactly that. For example, we are limiting the period over which a jobseeker can keep claiming benefits to six months. Colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions have strengthened the habitual residence test to ensure that it is tougher. We have also made sure that if people who come here
	are not exercising treaty rights and we remove them from the United Kingdom, we can stop them returning unless they demonstrate that they are going to do so.

Gisela Stuart: Much of the detail on access to benefits is determined locally, and it is quite difficult, even after checking with the House of Commons Library or the website, to understand what some of the precise definitions mean. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that local authorities and the various agencies interpret what he thinks is a toughening consistently across the country?

Mark Harper: On the hon. Lady’s point about benefits, those are not decisions for local authorities but for the Department for Work and Pensions, which trains its staff very carefully and gives them clear guidance. They are rolling out the new habitual residence test, which is robust and has a clear script with questions that people are asked. There will be further changes on access to housing benefit. We will make sure that where these decisions are for local authorities they are provided with clear guidance so that they can make the right decisions in the tougher regime.

Philip Hollobone: On 1 January, when the transitional controls on Romania and Bulgaria are lifted, will entry also be permitted to non-EU citizens who have Bulgarian or Romanian passports? If so, will the very large number of Moldovans who have Romanian passports be entitled to benefits, like Romanians and Bulgarians?

Mark Harper: I may be missing something, but if people have Romanian or Bulgarian passports and are citizens of Romania or Bulgaria, they are entitled to come to Britain because those countries are members of the European Union. Indeed, they could come to Britain today; the transitional restrictions are only about whether they can come here to work. People with a Romanian or Bulgarian passports—citizens of those countries—are of course able to come to Britain today.

Barry Sheerman: My constituents are pretty accepting of migration and have been for very many years, and I have always been liberal about migration to our country, but what does worry them is not just the benefit position but whether we have enough school places and social housing. Do we have enough public services to meet the challenge of a fresh wave of immigration?

Mark Harper: It is very good, of course, that the hon. Gentleman takes a very liberal approach; he will have been delighted, then, when his party was in power and had net migration of 2.1 million over its period in office, but I do not think that was the general view. On the availability of public services, it is exactly because of the pressures on school places and on access to GPs that the Government have reduced net migration by nearly a third since the election. We want to make sure that people who are coming here are doing so to contribute and to pay their way, and that that immigration is properly controlled.

Deportation Appeals System

Christopher Pincher: What changes she plans to make to the deportation appeals system.

Mark Harper: We are making changes in the Immigration Bill to reduce the number of appeal rights and to ensure that those convicted of criminal offences will, in most cases, be able to be deported first and their appeal to take place from overseas.

Christopher Pincher: I am grateful to the Minister for tightening up the previous Government’s deportation regulations so that the scandalous waste of time it took to deport Hamza and Qatada can never happen again. Can he confirm that the proposals he has tabled are unlikely to be struck down by the European Court of Human Rights? If they might be, is he prepared to take action against the European convention on human rights first?

Mark Harper: We have looked very carefully at this, and we are confident that the measures in the Immigration Bill, including the changes that clause 14 makes to article 8 to put it on a proper statutory basis, are robust. The Home Secretary has made it clear that at the election we will have to deal with the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the convention. Indeed, that has been reinforced by comments from Lord Sumption, who pointed out that the Court is now engaged in judicial law-making, which is in constitutional terms remarkable, taking many contentious issues that should be questions for political debate and turning them into questions of law to be resolved by a tribunal. I could not agree with him more.

Domestic Violence

Julie Elliott: What assessment she has made of trends in the number of referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service for domestic violence offences.

Norman Baker: The Home Office chaired a meeting with the former Director of Public Prosecutions in September. This has led to a six-point plan to increase the number of referrals from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service. I am meeting the new Director of Public Prosecutions this week to discuss what more we can do to secure more convictions. However, it should be noted that last year saw the highest ever conviction rate for domestic violence prosecutions.

Julie Elliott: I thank the Minister for that answer. However, as we know from the crime survey, instances of domestic violence are increasing quite dramatically at the moment, and there has been a 13% fall in the number of cases referred to the CPS from the police since the election. Is a six-point plan really enough to tackle this serious problem?

Norman Baker: I agree that it is a serious problem, and that is why the Home Secretary and I have been working to deal with it. The six-point plan includes Her
	Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary looking specifically at police referrals to the CPS, reviewing the use of out-of-court disposals for these cases, and convening a national scrutiny panel to look at the trends in, for example, rape referral levels. We are taking these matters very seriously. As I said, I am meeting the DPP this week.

Pauline Latham: I welcome the Government’s decision last week to introduce Clare’s law and, in parallel, domestic violence protection orders. Does the Minister agree that those two steps will do a great deal to protect women against domestic violence?

Norman Baker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and welcome the action she has taken for a long time on these matters. The pilot schemes for both Clare’s law and the protection orders demonstrated that they were useful. They were well used in the pilot areas and make a difference in driving down the incidence of domestic violence.

Steve Reed: Referrals are going down, but reported cases of domestic violence are going up. Today’s The Times also reports leaked figures showing that other crimes, including burglary and street robbery, are going up. Does the Minister now regret the Government’s complacency and the way in which they have undermined crime prevention specialist units, neighbourhood police and domestic violence support services?

Norman Baker: I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong on almost all counts. On the piece in this morning’s The Times, the hon. Gentleman might want to know that crime recorded by north-west police has fallen by 17% since June 2010 and that West Yorkshire has seen a drop of 15% in the same period. We welcome the fact that we now have a system whereby people—and women in particular—have more confidence to come forward to report domestic violence. [Interruption.] I hope you can hear me above the hubble-bubble opposite, Mr Speaker. I hope the situation will lead in due course to an increase in the number of prosecutions and convictions. Given that the matters are now firmly in the public mind, as they should be, historical cases are also coming forward and they are pushing the figures up.

Immigration Status Inquiries

Jeremy Corbyn: How many random inquiries on immigration status have been made in public places in each of the last six months.

Mark Harper: None.

Jeremy Corbyn: That is a surprising answer, because a number of us have witnessed immigration officers at Metropolitan line and other tube stations around London stopping people and asking them for their immigration status. Will the Minister assure me that no immigration officer would ever stop anyone randomly in a public place, ask them for identity documents and then call in the police to assist them with their inquiries, when there
	is no requirement to carry identity cards at any time in this country? Indeed, such identity cards do not even exist.

Mark Harper: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not conduct random operations; we conduct intelligence-led operations, as did the previous Government, and they are very successful. The street operations we have conducted this year have led to the arrest of almost a third of those encountered. They are very successful in enforcing our immigration laws. We do not stop people at random; we are not empowered to do so by law and even if we were, we would not do so as a matter of policy. We stop people when we think there is intelligence to indicate that they are breaking our immigration laws, and I make no apology for that.

Russell Brown: I thank the Minister and his staff for the support they gave recently to a constituent of mine to clarify a situation and smooth over the problems.
	The number of illegals being identified by the police at the ferry terminals in my area—which is part of the common travel area—has fallen only slightly. Is the Minister able to tell the House the number of people in that category who are stopped but who are not properly processed and who simply disappear?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s opening remarks.
	I do not have the figures to hand, because I was not aware that he intended to ask that question. I will look at the issue in detail and write to him, but on the common travel area in general, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims signed an agreement with the Irish Justice Minister in, I think, December 2011. We are taking steps with the Irish Republic to strengthen the common travel area to make sure that our borders continue to get more secure.

Violence against Women and Girls

Debbie Abrahams: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on preventing violence against women and girls.

Theresa May: The Department for Education routinely attends meetings of the violence against women and girls inter-ministerial group. We are committed to working in collaboration with the Department of Education to deliver actions from the violence against women and girls action plan to help young people better understand issues such as consent and healthy relationships.

Debbie Abrahams: Given that two women a week die at the hands of a partner or ex-partner and, alarmingly, that 50% of young men and 43% of young women feel it is acceptable for men to be aggressive towards their partners, the situation needs collective action. What in particular is the Home Secretary doing in conjunction with the Education Secretary about the introduction of compulsory relationship and sex education, not just in the secondary maintained sector, but in the primary and secondary sectors?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point to the appalling figures for the number of women who lose their lives each week in this country at the hands of a partner or former partner. Sadly, that figure has not changed for many years. Regularly, for a number of years, about two women a week have lost their lives in that way.
	I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the figures showing the number of young people who think that abuse within a relationship is normal. That is something that we must change. It is why the Home Office will shortly relaunch our very successful “This is Abuse” national campaign, which shows young people what actions constitute abuse and helps them to understand that.
	Early next year, Home Office Ministers will meet Ministers from the Department for Education and teaching unions to raise awareness among staff and pupils about risks linked to violence against women and girls. I am pleased to say that the Department for Education is providing funding to the PSHE Association to work with schools that are developing their personal, social, health and economic education curricula, which includes sex and relationships education.

Human Trafficking

Stephen Phillips: What steps she is taking to ensure that all appropriate powers are available to seize the UK and overseas assets of people engaged in human trafficking.

James Brokenshire: The Government are committed to tackling human trafficking and are determined to build on the UK’s strong record in supporting victims. The proposed modern slavery Bill, the first of its kind in Europe, will strengthen our response by increasing the number of successful prosecutions and convictions. The new serious and organised crime strategy makes it clear that attacking criminal finances is at the heart of our efforts to pursue all organised criminals. We are committed to strengthening legislation and ensuring that existing powers are effectively deployed both here and overseas.

Stephen Phillips: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the challenges of seizing traffickers’ assets, will he ensure that greater urgency is given to getting hold of them and making sure they go to compensate the victims of these horrendous crimes?

James Brokenshire: I think that it is important to underline to my hon. and learned Friend the steps that are being taken. Last year, about £1 million was taken off human trafficking offenders by way of enforcement of confiscation orders. Equally, I am absolutely clear on the need for more action. That is why the new National Crime Agency has been tasked with making the tackling of modern slavery one of its priorities, and why we are introducing the modern slavery Bill to up prosecutions and up such enforcement action. Indeed, the Bill will include provision for a new commissioner to get a stronger operational response on the recovery of assets and on other prosecutions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: One of the poisonous sidelines in the deplorable trade of human trafficking is of course the existence of rogue and criminal gangmasters. Are the Government minded to support Labour’s call to extend the gangmasters licensing regime to cover sectors to which this devastating trade has now spread, because it has gone beyond its traditional areas into construction, social care and other sectors where these rogues and criminals reside?

James Brokenshire: I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the National Crime Agency is working closely with the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and, indeed, has been involved in an important operation in Cambridgeshire in the past few weeks. Evidence is being taken by the Centre for Social Justice as part of our preparations for the modern slavery Bill. We are focusing on provisions that relate to enforcement by policing and law enforcement agencies, but we will clearly keep operational matters under review.

David Burrowes: On the basis of figures about UK citizens receiving consular advice for alleged trafficking and the fact that very few seem to be brought to justice overseas, is the Minister giving proper attention and resources to ensuring that UK citizens who ply this evil trade abroad are properly brought to justice?

James Brokenshire: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on the need to look at this complex issue both domestically in the UK and overseas. That is why we are working with other Governments and our embassies to strengthen support services for victims and to prevent these appalling crimes from occurring. The National Crime Agency has a focus on looking internationally and co-ordinating its work with overseas law enforcement agencies, so ensuring that where there is evidence, those involved in these pernicious crimes will be brought to justice.

Immigration

Gordon Henderson: What steps she is taking to reduce net immigration.

Mark Harper: We have reduced net migration by nearly a third since its peak in 2010. Immigration continues to fall, with immigration from outside the EU at its lowest level since 1998. We will continue to take steps to keep immigration under control, while allowing the best and the brightest to come to Britain to contribute to our economy.

Gordon Henderson: I welcome the Minister’s answer, but will he assure me that the Government will remove people who are not here to work and prevent them from coming back, unless they have a very good, legitimate reason for doing so?

Mark Harper: From last week’s announcements, my hon. Friend will have noted that we are changing the relevant regulations so that if EU citizens in Britain are, for example, involved in low-level criminality or rough sleeping, and not exercising their treaty rights, we will
	be able to remove them and prevent them from coming back, unless they can demonstrate that they will immediately be exercising those treaty rights. I think that those changes will be welcomed in the country.

Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister address that part of his responsibilities in this policy area as they affect would-be foreign students coming to study in this country? On 17 October, he painted a pretty positive picture in a written answer to me on this issue, but that stands in stark contrast to what the UK university sector is saying about a massive loss of income and of international good will for our country.

Mark Harper: I am surprised by that, because figures published last week showed a 7% increase—an increased increase on the previous statistics—in the number of such students going to our universities. There is no reason why a student who is properly qualified, who can speak English and who can pay their fees cannot come to a university, and if they get a graduate-level job, they can stay afterwards to work and to continue contributing, so I am not sure why the university sector is saying that. The increase in the number of students does not support its argument.

Gerald Howarth: Although I can understand, given the grotesque underestimate of the previous Government, my hon. Friend’s reluctance to predict the number of Bulgarians and Romanians likely to come to this country, may I encourage him to give the public and local authorities some indication so that they can plan? Furthermore, even at this late stage, may I invite the Government to support new clause 1 to the Immigration Bill to extend the transitional arrangements—and let us see the courts of these islands, or indeed the European Court of Justice, defy the will of Parliament?

Mark Harper: On the first point, predictions only have any value if they are accurate. I am sure that my hon. Friend was listening carefully to my earlier answer, but the figures from independent commentators—from the countries concerned to Migration Watch and other forecasters—are wide-ranging. Indeed, from what I think I heard an Opposition Member say, there is a political party in this country that thinks that all 29 million citizens of those two countries are going to arrive at Heathrow airport on 1 January. With that range of forecasts, it would not be wise to make any predictions.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Kevin Brennan: What changes she is considering to terrorism prevention and investigation measures.

Theresa May: TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world and, unlike control orders, they have been consistently upheld by the courts. The Security Service and police believe they have been effective in reducing the threat posed by TPIM subjects, and the Government have
	made it clear to the police and Security Service that every available power under TPIMs should be used to its fullest possible extent.

Kevin Brennan: In the last year under the Homes Secretary’s scheme, Ibrahim Magag and Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed have absconded. Does she have any idea where either man is, and will she confirm that, contrary to what she said last time she was in the House, she has no idea where Mr Mohamed’s passport is?

Theresa May: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to make verbally the amendment I made in Hansard. In my statement to the House about Mr Mohamed, I told the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, that I thought the police had his passport. I wrote to him afterwards explaining that that information was incorrect. The police did not have his passport, because when he returned to the UK, he was not in possession of a passport and therefore it was not possible to remove it from him.

Diana Johnson: The Home Secretary’s weak TPIMs regime reaches a milestone on 26 January 2014, when seven out of the eight TPIM orders expire and cannot be renewed. This includes the TPIM governing AY, who is believed to be a key member of the group behind attempts to blow up transatlantic flights with liquid bombs and who travelled to Pakistan to learn bomb making, and AM, who was involved in the same plot. Lord Justice Wilkie concluded that he was “highly intelligent” and
	“prepared to be a martyr in an attack designed to take many lives.”
	Will she explain why these individuals will be freed from all restrictions by the end of January 2014?

Theresa May: The hon. Lady is aware of the legislation, as is everybody else, but I take issue with her description of TPIMs. As she will have heard me say in answer to her hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation stated:
	“In terms of security, the TPIM regime continues to provide a high degree of protection against untriable and undeportable persons who are judged on substantial grounds to be dangerous terrorists,”.
	The hon. Lady talks about people coming off TPIMs as if no one had ever come off a control order. In fact, 43 people came off control orders because the previous Government revoked them because they were quashed in court, or in six cases because people absconded and were never seen again.

Police Service

Lorraine Fullbrook: What steps she is taking to broaden entrance to the police service.

Damian Green: We have moved away from a single point of recruitment and are introducing entry direct to senior police ranks to encourage the most able and those with strong evidence of delivery. There are now
	different routes to enter as a constable, including having a level 3 qualification, a police qualification or relevant policing experience.

Lorraine Fullbrook: Some claim that a person cannot serve as a senior police officer without having served in the lower ranks, but direct entry is successful in the armed forces and the prison service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the College of Policing should look at best practice in those professions to ensure that direct entry encourages the best and brightest talent from all walks of life to join the police service?

Damian Green: I am happy to assure my hon. Friend that the College of Policing will do exactly that. Clearly, many of the best and brightest people already join the police service, but we can always make it better. The proposals are designed to ensure that a wider talent pool is available to the police.

Project Spade

Julian Huppert: What involvement the UK has had in Project Spade; and if she will make a statement.

Damian Green: In July 2012, prior to its incorporation into the National Crime Agency, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre received information via Interpol from Toronto police as part of Project Spade. The NCA CEOP command has now undertaken additional assessment of the data provided, and information was provided to police forces on 26 November. Investigations in the UK are therefore ongoing. Being part of the NCA brings advantages for CEOP, including the ability to draw on specialist skills, resources and the international network.

Julian Huppert: The Prime Minister and Home Secretary talk often about the need to combat child abuse images, and keep asking for more powers. We now know that when excellent police work happens in Canada, which released 386 young children, and 2,345 specific suspects are passed on to CEOP and the British police, the British police do nothing for 18 months. Does the Minister agree it is important for the police to get the basics right, not to keep asking for more powers?

Damian Green: That is precisely why CEOP has been moved to the National Crime Agency. Since its launch, the NCA can already demonstrate operational success in tackling child exploitation. As part of a recent operation by the NCA, which has been up and running for only a couple of months, 25 individuals were arrested on suspicion of involvement in the distribution of indecent images of children. The move to the NCA has made CEOP even more effective than it was in the past.

Topical Questions

Eric Ollerenshaw: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Theresa May: My Department continues its work to bring forward a modern slavery Bill, which will strengthen our response to that appalling crime. We propose to introduce new legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows, and will publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill will clarify existing legislation and enable the courts to restrict activity that puts others at risk, ensuring that more traffickers are identified, disrupted and brought to justice. We are determined to build on the UK’s strong track record in supporting victims and fighting traffickers.
	The House will be aware of Friday’s tragic incident in Glasgow, in which a Police Scotland helicopter crashed into the Clutha pub. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims, their friends and families. The national police operational co-ordination centre stands ready to assist Police Scotland in any way it can, and the National Police Air Service has also offered air support to Scotland for critical incidents.

Eric Ollerenshaw: I am sure the whole House joins the Home Secretary in her condolences to those affected by the growing tragedy in Glasgow.
	Recently in Fleetwood, a joint operation between Wyre borough council, Fleetwood police, and local pub landlords through Pubwatch targeted the illegal use of drugs. Interestingly, a drug sniffer dog was used among customers, which was totally welcomed by customers and landlords alike—except, perhaps, by the one person arrested. Does the Home Secretary welcome more of those joint and direct operations by police and local councils on the front line to bring back confidence in our communities?

Mr Speaker: I thought the hon. Gentleman was applying for an Adjournment debate, but then I realised he has already had it.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he gives me the opportunity to welcome joint action at local level. I commend Wyre borough council, Lancashire police and publicans for their work. I am pleased to say that we will announce shortly a number of local alcohol action areas, which will seek to tackle alcohol-related crime and health harms, and diversify the night-time economy beyond businesses centred on selling alcohol.

Yvette Cooper: I join the Home Secretary is sending our sympathy to those who have lost loved ones or been affected by the tragic helicopter crash in Glasgow. We pay tribute to the emergency services who are still working hard to help people.
	The Home Secretary will be aware that before the election the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape, domestic violence and child abuse was going up year on year as a result of the bravery of victims and hard work by the police, Crown Prosecution Service, Government agencies and support workers. The police recognised today that the number of prosecutions and convictions for rape has fallen since the election, even though more crimes are being recorded. The number of cases being referred by the police to the courts has dropped by 33% since the election. Will she tell the House why that has happened?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady is right to draw attention to the figures; they are a concern and the Government are looking at them. The Minister for Crime Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), will be taking this issue forward. As he said in response to an earlier question, there was a meeting at the Home Office between Ministers and the Director of Public Prosecutions a couple of months or so ago to look at the issue and find out where the problem lies. Historic incidents are now being reported— we have seen a number of reports of claims of crimes in relation to Operation Yewtree and others—but it is right that we look carefully to ascertain what the issue is. That is exactly what the Minister for Crime Prevention will be doing when he takes this matter forward with the incoming Director of Public Prosecutions later this week.

Yvette Cooper: I have to say that there seem to be a lot of meetings that are just not working. The trouble is that this does not just concern rape: prosecutions and convictions are down for domestic violence and child abuse, too, even though the number of reported crimes in those areas is also increasing. The police are referring 13% fewer domestic violence cases and 28% fewer child abuse cases to the courts since the election, before which the figures were going up. Those are shocking figures: there are more crimes and more serious offenders are getting away with it. The police are being hollowed out and specialist units cut. The Home Secretary said three years ago that tackling violence against women was her priority. I urge her to start treating it as such.

Theresa May: I note that we are seeing higher conviction rates for rape, and we should all welcome that. I tried to answer the right hon. Lady’s question in a way that was serious and sensible. This is a matter that we need to be concerned about and consider, but we cannot know what the answer is until we have identified why, for example, we have seen fewer referrals from the police. Until we—[Interruption.] The right hon. Lady is muttering from a sedentary position and making certain assumptions. I take a simple view: it is right and proper to consider the causes behind these figures. Only when we do that will we be able to ensure that the action we take will address the issue. I repeat that she must recognise, as I am sure she does, that the figures for higher reports of violence and abuse include a significant increase as a result of historical operations.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am extremely grateful to the Home Secretary. I remind the House that topical questions and answers are supposed to be brief. We can be led in that now by Mr Martin Vickers.

Martin Vickers: My constituents are concerned about immigration from Romania and Bulgaria and would like to see the transitional period extended. Public opinion in neighbouring EU states shows that that view is widely shared. Have the Government had discussions with other EU Governments on united action?

Mark Harper: It is not possible to extend transitional controls due to the terms of the accession treaties signed by the Labour party when it was in government. Eight other European countries will remove those controls at the end of the year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has,
	however, been working with our European colleagues to tighten the rules so that we see a reduction in the abuse of free movement.

Hazel Blears: I welcome that fact that now, under Clare’s law, victims of serial perpetrators of domestic violence will be able to get disclosures from right across the country. The Home Secretary knows that victims are probably at their most vulnerable at the point of disclosure, so will she ensure that organisations such as Women’s Aid and domestic violence advisers have sufficient resources to be able to protect those victims at that point?

Theresa May: I recognise the interest that the right hon. Lady has taken in the question of Clare’s law and the work that she did to promote the concept behind it, following the sad and tragic death of one of her constituents who did not have access to information about their partner. What we have seen among the police forces that have been piloting Clare’s law is a real understanding of the need to work closely with other organisations such as Women’s Aid to ensure that there is support for victims. I am pleased to say that the Government have ring-fenced £40 million for local support, including for independent domestic violence advocates, who often play a key role in such cases.

Jack Lopresti: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to stop illegal immigrants from getting driving licences?

Norman Baker: We are indeed taking steps. It is not right that someone who is here illegally should be able to access UK driving licences, which are used not just for driving but to get access to benefits and services. The Immigration Bill strengthens our ability to issue licences only to those who are lawfully here and enables us for the first time to revoke licences held by those who should not be here.

Kate Green: Does the Minister share my concern at reports that, because of pressure on police numbers, police officers are increasingly attending domestic violence incidents singly, which makes it more difficult for them to separate partners and puts the officers themselves at risk?

Norman Baker: I am confident that the police can deal with domestic violence incidents more effectively now that domestic violence protection orders are in place, which enable them to separate the perpetrator and victim immediately by requiring the perpetrator to leave the premises.

Priti Patel: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is right for the Government to review the implications of the free movement directive, particularly for EU migration—and I welcome her remarks last week—and to look at individual measures such as imposing a cap on numbers of European migrants, once they reach a certain threshold?

Theresa May: I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to look at the issue of free movement—and it will be possible to do that because the Conservatives have a commitment as a party to renegotiate the treaty and to look at free movement within it. In future, we should
	consider a number of measures regarding the accession of countries into the EU and into free movement, so that we can protect the public and other services that are available to our citizens.

Fiona Mactaggart: The Secretary of State will be aware that the police and crime commissioner for the Thames Valley has blamed her 20% cut in spending on the police for the cuts he has made to the community safety funds for local government. My authority of Slough has been cut by £40,000, while the right hon. Lady’s has been cut by nothing. Can that be fair in an era when Slough has already reduced crime by 5% and needs these resources to carry on making progress?

Damian Green: I am happy to tell the hon. Lady what is fair. What is fair is that recorded crime in the Slough community safety partnership is down by 26% in the 12 months to June 2013, which is greater than the overall figure for England and Wales. That was between 2012 and 2013, so I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome this improved service to her constituents.

Philip Hollobone: After the wave of mass immigration under the previous Labour Government, my constituents believe that this country is full, and do not want to see unrestricted immigration from Romania, Bulgaria and, as it now turns out, up to one third of Moldova. At this late stage with a month to go, I urge the Home Secretary to think again and not to waive the transitional controls.

Mark Harper: Obviously I understand why my hon. Friend’s constituents are concerned, given the appalling job that was done by the Labour Government. In fact, under Labour twice as many people arrived from outside the European Union as arrived from within it. However, as I said earlier, the transitional controls under the accession treaties that Labour signed can last only until the end of the year, and eight other European countries are removing those controls. That is why we have announced changes to ensure that anyone who comes to this country comes to work and not to claim benefits.

Sheila Gilmore: A number of my constituents who have been given leave to remain in this country, in some cases after appealing, are now spending several months waiting for the paperwork to come through, with the result that a number of them cannot take up job offers. What steps is the Department taking to deal with that?

Mark Harper: If the hon. Lady knows of any specific cases and has not already written to me about them, I suggest that she do so. Since we split up the UK Border Agency, UK Visas and Immigration has been concentrating on improving its customer service standards. We have already reduced the backlog of cases by a significant amount in the current financial year, and we will continue to do so. The new director general is focusing on improving performance for our customers.

Annette Brooke: What action is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that child victims of trafficking are receiving all the support to which they are entitled, and would she consider piloting a system of independent guardianship?

James Brokenshire: Ultimately, child trafficking is a form of child abuse. When such crimes take place, not only should those responsible be brought to justice, but victims should receive all the support that they need. Local authorities have a strategy duty under the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, and the Department for Education, recognising the specific needs of child victims of trafficking, is considering ways of strengthening support arrangements for them.

Kerry McCarthy: The Home Secretary will, I hope, be aware of the tragic murder of my constituent Bijan Ebrahim, whose killer was sentenced last Thursday. He was attacked because his neighbours thought, quite unjustifiably, that he was a paedophile. I have written to the Home Secretary, but may I urge her to do all that she can to ensure that the Independent Police Complaints Commission has the resources that will enable it to report as quickly as possible? Resolving this matter is very important for community cohesion in the area.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady has made a very serious point about what is, as she says, a terrible case. I have not yet seen the letter that she sent to me, but I will look at it extremely carefully. We are providing extra resources for the IPCC to try to ensure that it can do its job effectively in looking into the way in which complaints about the police have been dealt with.

Paul Maynard: What improvements are planned to exit and entry checks at ports of entry on the Irish sea which form part of the border area that we share with the Irish Republic?

Mark Harper: I know that this matter is of concern to my hon. Friend and his constituents, because he wrote to me about it early this year. As I said earlier during Home Office questions, we continue to work closely with the Irish Republic following the protocol signed by the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green). We work closely with the Republic in sharing intelligence to strengthen the controls that ensure that our country is properly protected.

Nicholas Dakin: Given the record number of animal experiments that were recorded in 2012, what action are the Government taking to create a downward rather than an upward trend?

Norman Baker: I am pleased to say that we are taking strong action in that regard, in particular by promoting the alternatives to animal experiments to the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research. We are leading the world in that regard.

Chloe Smith: At a time when Britain is showing strong leadership against sexual violence internationally, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary aware of the work done domestically and locally by the Norfolk Says No campaign against domestic abuse, which completed a great week of work last week?

Norman Baker: I congratulate those who are involved in the Norfolk Says No campaign. We need more such examples of excellent local practice to ensure that our message reaches women in their daily lives, and police and crime commissioners have a role to play in the matter.

Energy Bills

Edward Davey: With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the action the Government are taking to reduce the impact of Government policies on energy bills.
	British households pay some of the lowest prices for gas and electricity in Europe, but that is no comfort to those who have seen energy bills rise considerably over the past 10 years. The latest round of price rises announced by the energy companies has been particularly unwelcome, coming ahead of what is likely to be a cold winter. In such circumstances, it is right that people ask whether these rises are justified and what the Government are doing to keep energy bills affordable now and in the long term.
	The main driver of the energy price rises has been rising wholesale energy costs, and the need to upgrade energy infrastructure to ensure security of supply in the long term. Wholesale and network costs make up over two thirds of bills. Supplier costs and profits make up around a fifth. Energy companies need to be more open about these costs so that consumers can judge which suppliers are acting responsibly and keeping their costs down.
	Working with Ofgem, the Government are making this possible by forcing the energy companies to open up their books and justify price rises to their customers. We are increasing competition in the market to bear down on prices and provide people with a proper choice of supplier, and as I announced in the annual energy statement, Ofgem, working with the competition authorities, will report annually on the state of competition in the market, looking in depth and across the energy sector at profits and prices, barriers to entry and consumer engagement. Ofgem’s reforms for competition in the retail market are already making it easier for people to understand their bills, work out where they can get the best deal, and switch providers easily.
	But it is also right that the Government are open about their social and environmental policies, which make up just under a 10th of the average bill. Our policies provide for immediate help for the most vulnerable with direct cuts to bills, as well as long-term savings on bills through energy-efficiency programmes and support for low-carbon energy that boosts energy security and tackles climate change. For example, the warm home discount cuts the bills of 2 million vulnerable households by £135. The energy company obligation provides permanent long-term savings on bills, including to the most vulnerable, by helping people to upgrade their homes and making them easier and cheaper to keep warm.
	Support for cleaner energy increases our energy security and boosts investment in our thriving renewable energy industry, with tens of thousands of green jobs being created, but unlike the winter fuel payment, which provides around 12.5 million pensioners with help with their bills, and cold weather payments, which last year provided over £146 million to cut bills for the most vulnerable, policies such as the renewables obligation, ECO and the warm home discount are paid for directly by consumers through their bills, rather than through general taxation. So it is right that Government keep
	these social and environmental obligations paid for by energy bill payers under continuous review, and where we can act to reduce their impact on bills, while maintaining the integrity of our policy, we will, but as we do this, we must act responsibly. We must ensure—
	[Interruption.] 
	We must ensure that the changes we make maintain the support provided to the most vulnerable, maintain the investment in clean energy and do not have a negative impact on our carbon reduction ambitions.
	In this spirit, the Government have reviewed the cost profile of social and environmental policies and I can today announce proposals that would reduce the average household bill next year by £50 on average. First, the Government will provide £300 million—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us have a bit of order in the House. The Secretary of State is doing his best to plough on—[Interruption.] No, he is doing his best to plough on through his statement. Let me say to the House that the opportunity to question the Secretary of State will arise, and that is what he would expect, but the Secretary of State is entitled to be heard courteously from start to finish.

Edward Davey: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	First, the Government will provide £300 million in both 2014 and 2015, £600 million in all, for a new rebate to all domestic electricity customers worth £12. Secondly, we propose to consult on remodelling the ECO so that it is easier and cheaper to deliver. The changes to the ECO would result in between £30 and £35 off average bills next year, although the precise reduction in individual households’ bills would depend on their energy supplier. The existing dedicated support in the ECO for low-income and vulnerable households—affordable warmth and the carbon saving communities obligations—will both be maintained at current levels and extended from March 2015 until March 2017. The other element of the ECO, the carbon emissions reduction obligation, will also be extended by two years but reduced by 33%. These changes are subject to consultation, which will be carried out early in the new year. In addition to Government action, the electricity distribution network operators are willing to take voluntary action to reduce network costs in 2014-15, which would enable suppliers to pass on an average one-off £5 reduction in domestic electricity bills.
	I have been clear from the start that support for low-carbon energy should not change, and it will not. The Government recognise that green energy investment incentives such as the renewables obligation, contracts for difference and feed-in tariffs are essential for investment in future home-grown clean energy generation. Without this low-carbon investment, energy security would be jeopardised as Britain would become ever more dependent on imported oil and gas, and energy bills in the future would be increasingly subject to high and volatile fossil fuel prices. The Government will also ensure that their overall approach will cut just as much carbon as planned. New measures, worth more than £540 million over three years, will boost energy efficiency even further by introducing new schemes for home-movers, landlords and public sector buildings.
	In future, when people buy a new home, they could get up to £1,000 from the Government to spend on important energy-saving measures—equivalent to half the stamp duty on the average house—or up to £4,000
	for particularly expensive measures. The scheme will be available to all people moving house, including those who do not pay stamp duty, helping around 60,000 homes a year over three years. The Government will also introduce a scheme to support private landlords in improving the energy efficiency of their properties, which will improve some 15,000 of the least energy-efficient rental properties each year for three years. Together, the home buyers and private rental schemes will be worth £450 million over three years. In addition, £90 million over three years will be spent on improving the energy efficiency of schools, hospitals and other public sector buildings.
	The Government will deliver a significant boost to the green deal, increasing the funds available to local authorities this year through the green deal communities scheme from £20 million to £80 million, to help support “street-by-street” programmes for hard-to-treat homes in a cost-effective way. We will keep the green deal cashback scheme open, which will protect jobs in the energy efficiency industry before the new measures take effect.
	All the major energy suppliers have confirmed that they will pass the benefits of this package on to their customers. The reduction in individual household bills will depend on the energy supplier: some companies have not yet announced price rises for 2014, or have limited their rise until the Government’s review of green levies concluded. Others have announced price rises and have indicated that they will reduce their customers’ bills as a result of these changes. Energy companies will now make final detailed decisions about how to apply these measures, but these cost reductions will ensure that average energy bills are lower in 2014 than they otherwise would have been—on average, by £50 per household. As the major energy companies have now confirmed, there will be no need for price rises in 2014, unless of course there is a major change in wholesale or network costs. Some have gone further, with commitments to hold prices down for longer.
	Today’s announcement of cuts to energy bills is just part of the concerted action the Government are taking to help hard-working families, including through income tax cuts, the council tax freeze and the fuel duty freeze. This help for people with energy bills is being achieved while we maintain and extend support for the fuel-poor and continue to back green energy, and by boosting energy efficiency. I commend this statement to the House.

Caroline Flint: May I start by asking the Secretary of State a very simple question: does he accept that the sum total of everything he said in his statement today, which includes spending £600 million of taxpayers’ money and weakening the obligation on energy companies to deliver energy efficiency, is that the energy companies will still be allowed to put up people’s bills this winter? Does he really think that is a good deal for consumers?
	The Secretary of State claimed that today’s announcement would lead to a £50 reduction in people’s bills. To be clear, will he confirm that if the average increase in energy bills this winter is £120, even if the companies do pass on the reductions from the cut in levies, the average household bill will actually be £70 higher than last winter? As I understand it, one supplier has
	announced that it will wait until March before passing on any price reduction, and another has made no commitment at all on reducing bills. What powers, if any, does the Secretary of State have to ensure that this reduction is passed on fully and immediately?
	The Secretary of State will know that for the past two years we have said that the energy company obligation is bureaucratic, inefficient and poorly targeted. The scheme was designed and implemented under his Government. Indeed, the Prime Minister boasted in the House on 23 January that it was “bigger and better” than the schemes that had gone before it. When did the Secretary of State decide that the scheme needed to be cut? Was it this weekend? Could that explain why an impact assessment will not be published until next year? Will he also tell us how many fewer households will receive energy efficiency measures this year and next year than was originally planned under the scheme?
	The Secretary of State wants to talk about the total number of households that will be helped, but if the scheme was meant to run for two years and will now run for four, does not that mean that half as many people will receive help in each year? Will he also tell us what discussions he has had with the insulation industry about the effect of this announcement, and what assessment he has made of any potential job losses in that industry?
	As for the warm home discount, will the Secretary of State confirm that all he has actually done is move the cost from people’s bills to their taxes? Evidence that we published last month, and in our Green Paper last week, showed that increases in wholesale costs—which the Secretary State blamed in his statement for rising bills—cannot explain the price rises we have seen in the past two years, and neither can increases in network charges and policy costs.
	Last month, the Secretary of State appeared to agree with our criticism of the way in which the energy companies had put up their prices, when he said that they were treating their customers like “cash cows”. In the light of that, will he confirm that there was not a single measure in the package that he announced today that will cost the energy companies a single penny? Hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent, the energy companies are helping fewer households with energy efficiency, and people’s bills will still be higher this winter than last, yet the energy companies are still allowed to carry on overcharging people. Whatever the Secretary of State says today, if we genuinely want to get people’s bills down, nothing less than a price freeze and action to stop the energy companies overcharging will do.

Edward Davey: Members will notice that the right hon. Lady did not welcome this cut in energy bills for her constituents. Her constituents will want to know why she is not prepared to welcome it, and the constituents of every Labour Member who stands up to speak today will also want to know whether their Member of Parliament welcomes it.
	We looked at the Opposition’s energy freeze proposal, and it was clear that it would not work. The energy companies would put up bills before it and afterwards. It was, and remains, a con. Worse than that, it would undermine competition and investment. Our proposals are real measures based on real facts, and they are going to help people across the country.
	The right hon. Lady asked about the big six. We made it clear in our discussions that we expect them to pass on these cuts so that average bills go down by £50, and that is what will happen. She wants to know what we have said about the big six. We have pushed real competition measures. The big six were created by Labour. In 2000, there were 17 companies in the sector. By the time Labour left office, there were just six. The big six are Labour’s big six. This coalition has produced competition, which is really having an effect.
	It was interesting to listen to the last Opposition day debate on this subject, in which the right hon. Lady revealed that she had not even read Ofgem’s proposals for competition in the wholesale market. That shows how much she is not on top of her brief. On the ECO, she has tried to suggest that we are cutting support for fuel poverty, but it is quite the reverse. As I made clear in my statement, we are not only maintaining support for the fuel poverty schemes within the ECO but extending them for two more years.
	The right hon. Lady asked what had happened to the impact assessment. I have made it clear that we are going to consult, as she would expect. We will publish the impact assessment when we publish the consultation paper, as we would normally.
	The right hon. Lady talks about the insulation industry. I am extremely concerned to ensure that it keeps people employed and keeps investing in people’s homes so that they can have permanently lower bills. Our proposal on the stamp duty—£1,000 off for people who move their homes, even if they do not pay stamp duty, to help the lowest-income home owners—will help the energy-efficiency industry, and it is welcoming it.
	Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about shifting costs from bills to taxes. I would have thought she had spoken to the fuel poverty campaign groups, because it is they that have wanted this, as it is more progressive. So not only are our policies helping the fuel poor, but they are far more progressive than those we inherited from Labour.

Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that an even bigger proportion of average fuel bills is accounted for by the transmission and distribution charges, and that further cuts in fuel bills could therefore be achieved if there was more pressure on the monopoly providers of transmission and distribution, such as the National Grid Company, whose prices are currently not subject to any competitive pressure or any market forces?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will have heard in my statement that the electricity distribution network operators will indeed be contributing £5 to this package next year. He will also know that Ofgem has called in the plans of the DNOs and the transmission distribution companies to look at them again, and it is for the independent regulator to scrutinise them with the care we expect.

Glenda Jackson: Despite the Secretary of State’s ploughing, he has markedly failed to deliver a straight furrow. Despite his criticism of the big six—they were the big six for the three years of his coalition Government and Labour’s big six
	for a week—there is not one penny coming from those companies to help reduce costs now, and this delay in the implementation of the ECO scheme means that there will be even bigger bills to be paid in the future.

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is completely wrong. The ECO scheme remains—let us be clear about that. The affordable warmth component of the ECO not only maintains at its current level, but is extended for two years. Similarly, the carbon saving community obligation continues in force now and is extended. The only part of the ECO that is being cut at all—but it still remains—is the carbon emissions reduction obligation. She ought to welcome that, not least because the proposals published by the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) suggest that the Labour party would get rid of that part of the ECO.

Tessa Munt: Does the Secretary of State agree that moving towards general taxation means that the cost of the social and environmental measures he wishes to take will be borne by those who are better off, rather than by people with very low incomes and vulnerable households, whom we seek to help?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right; moving some of the costs that were on the bill and having to be paid by all bill payers, no matter whether they pay tax or not, to taxation results in a more progressive system overall. One would have thought that the Labour party welcomed that.

David Winnick: Does the Minister understand that an increasing number of people in this country are now terrified to use their heating because they are frightened of what their bills will be as a result of the very large increases? We are returning to the fuel poverty that existed under the last Labour Government—[Laughter.] I thought the Tories would cheer at that. It is because they do not want to recognise the fuel poverty that existed under the Tory Government, and it was the Labour Government who brought in the necessary measures to help so many people. This inadequate statement would not even have been made without the pressure from the Leader of the Opposition.

Edward Davey: It was the last Labour Government’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary who said that
	“alarming people about energy issues is not a mature way to conduct politics”—[Official Report, 13 January 2010; Vol. 503, c. 773.]
	If only he had kept to his word. This coalition Government have taken energy bills seriously, unlike the previous Government. They killed competition, whereas we are increasing it. They did not take the measures that we are taking, and they should be ashamed of their appalling record.

Christopher Chope: Why has the Secretary of State not taken the simple and straightforward option of abolishing VAT on household energy bills? That would deliver greater benefits to householders and be far less complex.

Edward Davey: I think my hon. Friend knows that that would be illegal.

Lilian Greenwood: Will the Secretary of State give me a personal guarantee that his hasty changes to the energy company obligation will not curtail or delay the ECO-funded Nottingham greener housing scheme, which is providing external wall insulation to the thousands of tenants and residents on Clifton estate who live in hard-to-treat solid wall houses? Will he meet me and representatives of the scheme to ensure that fuel-poor residents in hard-to-treat homes across Nottingham will be protected?

Edward Davey: As a lad of Nottingham and someone who has been on a visit with the hon. Lady to a number of homes that are benefiting from the ECO scheme, I agree with her. We must ensure that communities around the country are benefiting, which is why we have increased the money for the green deal communities from £20 million to £80 million. I am happy to look at the case that the hon. Lady has raised.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Government had not increased cold weather payments and the basic state pension and had not protected winter fuel payments, many vulnerable people would be even worse off when facing increasing energy bills?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the first acts of this Government was to confirm the trebling of cold winter payments, so that people who were on low incomes had the money when they needed it. Under the triple lock, we have seen some of the biggest ever increases in the basic state pension, which has been greatly welcomed by pensioners up and down the country. By contrast, when Labour was in power, it oversaw an increase in the state pension in one year of just 75p.

Hywel Williams: How will these decisions help people in rural areas who depend on off-grid fuels?

Edward Davey: One of the things we have done is to look at the rural sub-obligation, which is a fourth component of the ECO, to ensure that it is working more effectively for people in rural areas, and we will be providing further details later.

Anne Main: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these problems have built up over many years and were not tackled by the previous Labour Government? He may also wish to know that in 2006, under the previous Government, fuel poverty in St Albans was at 6.4%, and it rose to a height of 13.7%. Does he agree that freezing energy for one year only would do nothing and that we need a sustained approach to cutting the number of taxes on people?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is right that fuel poverty rose to record levels under the previous Government. On their definition, the figures have come down under this Government. It is also interesting to note that the average increases in gas and electricity prices in the last Parliament under Labour were higher than the average annual increases in gas and electricity prices under this Government.

Derek Twigg: The fact is that many of my constituents will still struggle to afford to put on their heating, because this is an inadequate response to rising prices. I asked the Secretary of State in June whether he had raised with the energy companies the issue of profits. He said that he had not. Since then, in any other such meetings, has he raised any concerns about their level of profits?

Edward Davey: As I recall, the hon. Gentleman asked me whether I had raised the matter in a previous meeting. Since being Secretary of State, I have raised the issue of profits and prices with the big six energy companies on many occasions.

Phillip Lee: In 2010, EDF sold its three English networks for £5.8 billion at a 27% premium on Ofgem’s value. In 2011, E.ON sold its networks at a 40% premium. Does the Secretary of State think that returns allowed on UK-regulated energy networks have been and are too generous. If so, is Ofgem fit for purpose.

Edward Davey: Ofgem is fit for purpose. It needs to ensure that the returns on network business are fair to enable profits, but not beyond that. That is why it has acted. It has asked the network companies to justify the current investment programmes that they have put to it.

David Anderson: Is it not true that we were sold the privatisation of utilities on the supposed knowledge that there was a transfer of risk from the public sector to the private sector? What we have seen today is a transfer of risk from the billed utility customer to the taxpayer, so the same people are paying the same money through a different route while the companies get off scot-free and with a £600 million taxpayer bung.

Edward Davey: I do not recognise anything that the hon. Gentleman has just said. If he does not understand the difference between bill payers and tax payers, he needs to ask the fuel poverty lobby groups that are saying that people in his constituency on low incomes will benefit from this change, which moves some of the cost from bills to taxes. He really ought to talk to the fuel poverty lobby groups.

David Anderson: What about the companies doing their bit?

Mr Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) is now squawking like a parrot with indigestion. He must calm himself. He is normally a calm man and he aspires to statesmanship.

David Heath: Last week during Energy questions, I pressed the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), on the insulation of solid wall properties in rural areas, and he made some comforting remarks. Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), may I be assured that the programme to insulate solid wall properties in rural areas will not be slowed down by what he has announced today?

Edward Davey: I said that the rural sub-obligation would be improved to ensure that people are benefiting from it. We have some evidence that during the first year of ECO it was not getting through to rural people, so reforming that would be a real benefit. It is true that there will almost certainly be fewer solid wall insulations done as a result of the changes. We have not hidden that, but we have ensured that there is a minimum floor to give the industry confidence. The measures we are proposing for the energy efficiency industry—the stamp duty incentive and the money for private sector landlords—will also help to ensure that the solid wall insulation industry continues to get support.

John Healey: You may well be right that the Energy Secretary is doing his best, Mr Speaker, but it is simply not good enough. After today, people will still see their energy bills going up, so would they not be right to conclude that he and the Prime Minister are simply too weak and unwilling to stand up to the big energy companies?

Edward Davey: Not at all. People will look at the Labour party and see a party that is offering a con, a party that will undermine competition and reduce choice, meaning that they end up paying higher bills, and a party that is going against the national interest. We need to see investment in our energy industry to ensure that we keep the lights on. People around the country would not thank any Government who did not ensure that we had the investment for energy security.

Philip Davies: The Leader of the Opposition hiked up energy prices when he was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and is now trying to claim credit for keeping them at that hiked-up level. Unfortunately, we have heard the same clap-trap from the Secretary of State today as we heard from the Leader of the Opposition when he was Secretary of State. My constituents want the Government to source the cheapest energy rather than the greenest energy. When is the Secretary of State going to start doing that?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution, as always, but I must say that the most secure and effective policy is a mixed diverse approach. The mixed diverse approach ensures energy security but as, over time, we see reductions in the cost of alternative energy, such as clean energy, it also becomes increasingly good value for money.

Fiona O'Donnell: That was like a bad sketch in “The Fast Show”, with the Secretary of State saying, “The consumer gives the energy companies £120. I will give them £600 million and they can give the consumer £50 back.” He repeatedly referred to the most vulnerable consumers. Many of those in my constituency are forced to use expensive prepayment cards; what is the Secretary of State doing to protect them?

Edward Davey: They will get this benefit.

Andrew Jones: Does my right hon. Friend not think that problems with the energy market, such as those relating to long-term
	generating capacity, built up over many years but had been ignored, including when the Leader of the Opposition was Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why we have to increase investment so much over a relatively short time, which comes at a price, is the failure of the last Government to invest in energy infrastructure. People warned them, and warned the former Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, currently the Leader of the Opposition, to do something; he failed.

Bill Esterson: The Secretary of State says that he is spreading the money for the energy company obligation over an extra two years. That delays measures that would help people to keep their bills down. Is not the truth that people in fuel poverty will pay higher bills for longer after this statement?

Edward Davey: Not only did I not say what the hon. Gentleman said I did, but that is not true. Fuel poverty programmes, such as the affordable warmth programme and the carbon saving community obligation, remain in place, remain at the same rate in each year, and are being continued for two more years, so this is more investment to tackle fuel poverty.

Christopher Pincher: Within the next decade, we must invest £110 billion, probably more, in our energy infrastructure—the pipes, pylons and power stations—to keep our lights switched on. Does my right hon. Friend agree with energy experts and industry players that a freeze would jeopardise that investment, which would mean that the poor old taxpayers were even more hard-pressed because they would have to foot the bill?

Edward Davey: It would be worse than that: it would be the poor old consumers who did so, because the cost of capital would go up. There would also be a reduction in investment in green energy, which the Opposition claim to support, so the Opposition’s policy is both irresponsible and reckless.

Alex Cunningham: Around 100 people from my constituency, and hundreds more, face two extra hours on their working day after npower announced it was closing its Thornaby office, and that those people would therefore have further to travel. The company says that it is doing that, and sacking hundreds more and transferring the jobs to India, to help keep bills down. Has npower told the Secretary of State how much bills will come down by, at the expense of those lost and transferred jobs?

Edward Davey: This was discussed in a little more depth in oral questions to the Department of Energy and Climate Change last week. I made it clear that other Secretaries of State, particularly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I will look at what we can do to help people who are affected by npower’s redundancy package.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Energy Secretary’s announcement, and congratulate him on the robust defence that he has rightly made of the
	Government’s position. Further to an earlier question, may I ask him what more can be done for those in rural areas who rely on oil to heat their homes?

Edward Davey: The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), has been doing a huge amount of work on this. There will be a new code, or protocol, on working with industry to make sure that a lot of the policies that we have introduced, such as the “buy early” campaign, really help people who are off-grid in rural areas and who are dependent on fuel sources like oil.

Barbara Keeley: The Energy Secretary talked about there being no need to alarm people, but I have never known a time when older people in my constituency were more alarmed, probably because of the £300 by which their bills have already gone up. Despite the cut to green energy levies, bills will still go up by £70, so those older people do not need alarming; they are already alarmed. Is it not time that the Secretary of State stood up to the energy companies and supported a price freeze?

Edward Davey: I was quoting the leader of the hon. Lady’s party when I talked about not alarming people; I was making it clear that he said one thing when he was in government and changed his mind in opposition. The hon. Lady, like many of her hon. Friends, failed to welcome the announcement of an average of £50 off household energy bills; she should welcome it, and welcome the fact that this Government, through our tough competition policies, are taking on the big six that Labour created.

Robert Smith: I welcome the positive response to the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s recommendation that some of the costs of the levies be transferred to general taxation, as a fairer way of funding those levies. What is being done to assist people in switching, and to ensure that they realise that that is now meant to be simpler, and the best way for them to get the best deal?

Edward Davey: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s welcome. He is quite right: we looked at what the Select Committee said on those issues, and considered it carefully. He is also right to say that switching is a really important part of the way to help people, because there are some good deals out there. In the annual energy statement, I talked about our ambition to improve and make switching easier, and we are already working with he industry to bring about quicker switching.

David Wright: The Secretary of State said that he wanted to make bills easier for the public to understand, but the public know that even after this reduction their bills will rise over Christmas and rise next year. Exactly what has he got out of the energy companies and, as we say in Telford, when are they going to dob some money in?

Edward Davey: The really important thing for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents is that the average energy bill in his constituency will go down by £50, compared with
	what it otherwise would have been. If we had listened to the Labour party and continued its policies, for example with the renewable heat incentive, bills would be £179 higher.

Robert Halfon: My constituents will see through the crocodile tears of Opposition Members, because they know that energy prices doubled under the previous Government. Is my right hon. Friend aware that EDF, the local energy company in my constituency, is offering customers significant decreases through fixed-term tariffs? It is also ensuring that customers know about other companies’ deals? Does that not show that increased competition is the best way to get energy prices down?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we came to power we found that there were far too few energy companies and that the big six had it all their own way. As a result of the measures we have taken, through deregulation and the retail market review, we are seeing independent suppliers come in and offer some really good deals. He mentioned making energy bills simpler, which will help people know their options and be able to choose to switch to lower prices and better deals.

Alan Whitehead: Is there any part of his statement that the Secretary of State might wish to review in the light of what his own Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said yesterday, which was that the cuts in ECO will result in far less carbon being saved over the next period? Does he accept that ECO’s original intention, which was to cut bills by up to £400 for those who benefited from it permanently, is now seriously at risk as a result of what he has undertaken today?

Edward Davey: We approached the review with the intention of ensuring not only that we kept the support for the fuel-poor and the investment for green energy, but that it was carbon neutral. The package we have put together, not only with the energy efficiency investments we have announced today but with announcements that will be made in the autumn statement, will show that it is indeed carbon neutral.

Bob Stewart: Would it be possible to tackle the problem of VAT on fuel by ignoring a European Union directive and saying that we are just not going to collect it?

Edward Davey: I think that would be very unwise. I am sure that the Chancellor’s lawyers would explain that it is not legally possible.

Jim Cunningham: We need to ask what the Secretary of State has been doing for the past three and a half years. He has blamed everybody but himself. When the issue first arose, he told people to wear pullovers. What he is offering people today is less than 90p a week off their energy bills. How does that square with the bedroom tax? It will affect a hell of a lot of poor people in this country. This must be one of the cruellest Governments we have ever had.

Edward Davey: I must say that the hon. Gentleman, to whom I normally listen with attention, is wrong on every point. For example, he did not draw attention to the fact that the warm home discount is delivering £130 directly off the bills of the 2 million lowest income households in our country, including over 1 million of the poorest pensioners, something that I thought he would welcome..

Guy Opperman: It is this Government who have introduced a code of practice for off-grid suppliers, raised the basic pension and increased cold weather payments in a multiple way. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this reduction will help the vulnerable and elderly, in particular, in my constituency?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He is also right to put this announcement in the context of all the other things the Government are doing, whether it is the income tax cut that is taking some of our lowest paid out of income tax altogether, delivering a £700 tax cut for people on the basic rate of tax, the council tax freeze or the fuel duty freeze. These things are never admitted to by Labour Members, but our constituents are benefiting from them every day in every way.

Nia Griffith: Many of my constituents who get their energy from SSE saw their prices rise on 15 November. They now understand that they will be paying more through taxation and probably will not see any money from the energy company until April at least. The question they will be asking is whether this Secretary of State ever actually asked any of the energy companies for a price freeze—and if not, why not?

Edward Davey: I am surprised that the hon. Lady mentions SSE, because it has announced a £50 price cut from next year and a pledge to keep prices flat until spring 2015, subject obviously to wholesale energy costs. I would have thought that she would welcome SSE’s announcement.

Philip Hollobone: The best way to cut electricity and gas bills would be to abolish VAT on them. Will the Secretary of State, as an enthusiast for the European Union, confirm that it is the European Union that prevents VAT from being removed? What efforts have he and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made in Brussels to get a derogation from those restrictions?

Edward Davey: I am being tempted by my colleagues on the Back Benches. I hope they can cast their minds back to a former Conservative Government who wanted to put VAT at 17.5% on energy bills while my party campaigned against that. As I want to ensure that our coalition parties are working closely together, I respectfully repeat that that proposal would be against the law.

Chris Bryant: All one needs to know about this Government is summed up in the first few words of the Secretary of State’s statement when he said that this Government were taking action “to reduce the impact of Government policies on energy bills.” I want to increase the effect of Government policies on energy bills, because I want a Government who are
	going to stand up to the energy companies and make sure that we reduce bills. Why will the Government not do that?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman shows his lack of understanding of the policy. It is very important that we have Government policies to tackle fuel poverty and boost energy efficiency, and I would have thought he would welcome that. We are combining those policies with our very strong policies on competition. I only wish that when Labour was in government it had pursued competition policies as rigorous as ours.

Angela Watkinson: Will my right hon. Friend describe to the House just how much control he has over global gas wholesale prices?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Neither I nor my predecessor, nor the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job, has any control over international gas markets. That is why Labour’s policy of a price freeze makes no economic sense whatsoever. During that freeze we could find some small suppliers making serious losses or going out of business if wholesale prices went up. That would reduce competition and we would be back to the big six. Of course, that is what Labour wants, because it created the big six.

Stephen Doughty: Hundreds of people in Splott and Tremorfa in my constituency who suffer from some of the highest levels of fuel poverty and energy debt in Cardiff have signed a petition calling for a freeze in energy bills, but instead they will see their bills continue to rise. Is the Secretary of State just telling them to pipe down and settle for his announcement?

Edward Davey: It would be interesting to see the petition, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman did not show the people who signed it the small print, which shows that the price freeze would reduce competition, reduce investment, and is a complete con.

David Nuttall: Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to secure lower energy bills and more investment in the energy sector in the long term is for Government to cut corporation tax further, to cut the regulatory burden on companies, to increase competition, and to scrap altogether Government-imposed green and social levies on energy bills?

Edward Davey: There were moments in that question when I thought my hon. Friend was doing a good job, but I am afraid I cannot agree with everything he says.

Tom Blenkinsop: Is it not the case that this Minister and the Prime Minister only dare ask the big six to freeze energy prices, while the Leader of the Opposition will make the big six freeze energy prices?

Edward Davey: I am more impressed by what people do when they are in office. The Leader of the Opposition did nothing on competition when he was in office. He
	helped create the big six and he kept them in business. Frankly, we would like an apology from him and his party for the way they sucked up to the big six.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while it is right to take action to reduce energy bills, the only sustainable way to raise the living standards of hard-working families is by sticking to this Government’s long-term economic plans of deficit reduction and creating a responsible recovery?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is vital that we do everything we can on energy bills, as we have announced today, but it is equally vital that we make sure we run the economy in a sustainable way. When we came to power, inflation was 3.5% and rising; now it is 2% and falling. By tackling the cost of living and inflation, we are delivering real help to people. That is why disposable incomes for UK households are higher now than in any year between 1997 and 2010.

Cathy Jamieson: I have been contacted by companies in my constituency that are very concerned about the chaotic way in which the Government’s latest policy has emerged. Will the Secretary of State tell us exactly how many additional replacement energy-efficient boilers will be installed in households as a result of today’s announcement?

Edward Davey: There are likely to be a lot more, because we are extending the affordable warmth scheme: we are keeping its current rate for this year and next year and we are extending it for two years. That will mean more boilers in the homes of people who are fuel-poor.

John Leech: I welcome any measures such as this that help families who are struggling with the increased cost of living, but in the longer term has my right hon. Friend considered a complete separation of the retail and wholesale markets and the impact that that would have on retail gas and electricity prices?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Certainly, we and, indeed, Ofgem have been looking at how we can reform the wholesale market in a way that deals with the problems. Ofgem’s suggested “secure and promote” reforms—which the Labour party appears not to have read—will ensure that we will have much greater competition in the wholesale market, which means that independent generators will be able challenge the big six and their vertically integrated model. There are, therefore, alternative models to ensure that we get competition working in the generation markets, which has not happened for far too long.

Toby Perkins: More than 5,000 people in Chesterfield signed a petition urging the Government to freeze energy prices. They will be mystified as to why the Minister thinks it is a good idea to put money saved from energy bills on to the tax bill instead. In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), the Secretary of State said that he had discussed profits and prices with the big six energy companies. Did he tell them that he thought that profits and prices were too high?

Edward Davey: We have actually gone further than the hon. Gentleman wants. We have asked Ofgem to do a full review of the financial transparency of the big six so that their customers, this House and the public can see where and how they are making their profits. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman ought to be welcoming.

Russell Brown: The Secretary of State has been asked twice about rural areas such as mine, where many households are off the gas grid and use liquefied petroleum gas and heating oil. Not only that, but they are desperately low-income households. The Secretary of State’s statement gives nothing to those people, apart from telling them to continue to pay their tax, which will subsidise the energy companies.

Edward Davey: When I was asked that question on the two previous occasions mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I replied that one of the components of the energy company obligation has not been working, namely the rural sub-obligation of the carbon saving community obligation. We are reforming that to try to make sure that it works better for rural areas. We are doing an awful lot for people in rural areas, not least through the renewable heat incentive, which will be launched next March or April. We have not announced the actual date, but it is designed to help people who are off the gas grid.

John Robertson: I do not know whether the Secretary of State is being conned by the big six or whether he thinks he is conning us, but I know one thing: the poor are the ones who will suffer more than anybody else. What is the Secretary of State doing to those energy companies that force prepaid meters on people who can hardly afford to pay their bills and who, because they are on a prepaid meter, get themselves cut off and who may then die as a result of poor weather? What does his statement do for those people?

Edward Davey: It is worth pointing out to the hon. Gentleman, first, that disconnections are at an historical low and, secondly, that he is wrong about the impact of the statement for the fuel-poor. It is actually very good news for the fuel-poor: not only are we maintaining the programmes as previously planned, but we are extending them for two additional years, which one would have thought the Labour party would welcome.

Huw Irranca-Davies: On energy efficiency, we know that contractors who sometimes literally bet their house on green deal installations have tragically been let down by this Government, with only just over 200 out of an anticipated 10,000. Precisely how many fewer solid wall external cladding insulations will there be next year because of the reforms that the Secretary of State has announced today?

Edward Davey: First, the hon. Gentleman is wrong about the green deal; he was referring to green deal finance plans. He talked about insulations, but an awful lot more have gone on because of the green deal, with the
	success of green deal assessments—more than 100,000 of them—even though they have not necessarily been financed by a green deal finance plan, so he is completely wrong.
	One thing we have done to reassure the industry is to have a minimum of 25,000 solid wall insulations a year for the next four years. I hope and believe that there will be a lot more than that, but that will give the industry the reassurance and confidence that I think it needs.

Andrew Gwynne: The Secretary of State has panicked because he knows that Labour’s two-year price freeze has struck a popular chord. Is not the inconvenient truth of his fix with the big six energy companies that consumers across Tameside and Stockport, as well as the rest of the country, will still pay much more in energy prices, and that his plans do absolutely nothing to reset the energy market, which Labour’s price freeze would allow?

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong on every count. This Government—working positively with the independent regulator, Ofgem—are delivering reforms to reset the failed market that we inherited from the last Government. It is a shame that not a single Labour Member has welcomed the average £50 cut that will help households.

Diana Johnson: I listened to the Secretary of State announcing his policy of a £50 cut on Radio Humberside at 9 o’clock this morning. For people in Hull, will he confirm that they will still end up paying higher energy bills under his Government? The average bill is going up by £120 a year, so they will still pay £70 extra this year.

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is right to say that electricity and gas prices have been going up for some time, but we do not have a magic wand to say to international gas markets, “No, the prices cannot go up.” If Labour Members have found a magic wand, perhaps they would like to lend it to us.

Kate Green: If the Secretary of State is so confident about the impact of his measures, why are the Government trying to water down the fuel poverty target?

Edward Davey: We are not trying to water down the target. We have had a two and a half year analysis and consultation, as I would have thought the hon. Lady would know. My predecessor commissioned Professor John Hills to do a detailed and independent study on fuel poverty, which was not done under the previous Government. If she looks at the proposals that we have come up with, having consulted widely, she will see that they have been welcomed by fuel poverty groups. Why? They have been welcomed because the proposals will ensure that our resources are much better targeted on people in real fuel poverty—in what I call deep fuel
	poverty. Again, I would have thought that the Labour party would welcome that; it is a shame that it is not doing so.

Paul Flynn: Are not future rip-offs very likely, given the extraordinary deal on Hinkley Point nuclear power station which guarantees compensation to a French Government-owned company if British Government energy policy changes at any time over the next 35 years? Will the Secretary of State give us a promise of full transparency on the conditions of that extraordinary deal, so that we can know who is deciding it? Will it be decided by Parliament or by the Government in a private deal, in secret, with a nationalised company?

Edward Davey: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the impact of the nuclear deal, and actually he is disagreeing with his own Front-Bench team, who welcomed the deal. We have said in the Energy Bill and I have said at the Dispatch Box that we will be transparent. When the final investment contract is signed, which we expect to happen halfway through next year, it will be published, making it the most open and transparent nuclear deal done by any Government in history, not just in this country but across the world. He ought to welcome that.

Kerry McCarthy: My constituents will take two things away from today’s statement. One is that they will still be paying much more for their fuel bills this winter, and the other is that the big six energy companies, despite a 75% rise in profits last year, will still be making more money. Why does the Secretary of State expect my constituents to share the pain, but the energy companies not to share the gain?

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is mixing up two things. Today, following our detailed review of Government policy costs, we can announce that on average households will see their bills fall by £50, which she ought to welcome. Our policy for the big six and other energy companies is to have fierce, robust competition. One of the best ways to ensure that energy bills come down is to enable people in the retail markets to switch and to ensure that the big six face real competition in the generating market. It is competition that will push bills down in the long term.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) is absolutely right. The profits of the big six energy companies rose by 75% last year, while average household costs increased by £100, yet the £50 cut in fuel bills will come at no cost to the energy companies. Why are the Government not prepared to stand up to these big companies?

Edward Davey: I am never quite sure where the Labour party stands on profit. One of its number said in 2009:
	“The energy companies need to make sufficient profits in order to invest in the future”.
	That was the Leader of the Opposition when he was doing my job.

Helicopter Crash (Glasgow)

Alistair Carmichael: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement to update the House on the crash of the helicopter in Glasgow on the evening of Friday 29 November.
	As the House will be aware, at approximately 10.25 pm on Friday evening, a helicopter operated on behalf of Police Scotland crashed on to the roof of the Clutha bar in Stockwell street, Glasgow. It was reported that about 120 people were in the bar at the time of the accident. Police Scotland has overnight confirmed nine fatalities, including the pilot of the helicopter and the two police officers onboard. A further 32 people were injured in the crash and 12 remain in hospital. Three of those casualties are being treated in intensive care, where their conditions are described as serious but stable. The search of the building continues, and it remains possible that more casualties will be found.
	I am sure the House will wish to recognise the outstanding work of the emergency services for the speed, professionalism and courage of their response on Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday. The police, fire and ambulance services all responded magnificently, working in difficult and dangerous circumstances. In particular, we should recognise that police officers had to deal with the deaths not only of members of the public, but of two of their colleagues, PC Kirsty Nelis and PC Tony Collins.
	Some of the most remarkable stories of courage and selflessness from Friday night and Saturday morning have come from staff and customers of the Clutha bar and passersby who came to their assistance in the immediate aftermath of the accident. They responded with no thought for their personal safety. Hon. Members will know that among them was the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who happened to be one of the first on the scene. He is not in the House today, because he is in the Philippines in the course of his duties as shadow Secretary of State for International Development. He has been characteristically understated in describing his role, but I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that his response, which was instinctive, did him credit.
	In addition to meetings with members of all three emergency services in the command centre this morning, I met Councillor Gordon Matheson, the leader of Glasgow city council, at the city chambers, where I also signed the book of condolence. Glasgow city council will now take up much of the burden of caring for and comforting those affected by this incident.
	My right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary has been in regular contact and his Department, through its air accidents investigation branch, now has the duty to investigate and report on the causes of the accident. Investigations of that sort are inevitably complex and can be lengthy. I know that all those affected will be looking for answers, but the gathering of evidence, especially at this early stage, will be vital to that investigation. I hope the police and other investigatory agencies will be given time and space to do their job. The House will also wish to know that there has been close contact
	between Her Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government since the incident. The Prime Minister spoke to the First Minister on Saturday and offered any assistance from the emergency services or other agencies south of the border, should that be required.
	Today, I wear a badge that was given to me this morning by Councillor Matheson. It reads simply: “People make Glasgow.” The response of the people who make Glasgow has demonstrated all the courage and character that has made that city famous throughout the world. We in this House, and the people we represent in communities throughout the United Kingdom, today stand in solidarity with the people of Glasgow as they mourn their loss and start to come to terms with their grief. People make Glasgow, Mr Speaker, and today I wear that badge with pride.

Margaret Curran: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. This has been a dark weekend for Glasgow and our whole country. When we should have woken to celebrate St Andrew’s day on Saturday, we were instead met with unexpected tragedy, and when I attended mass on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition in St Andrew’s cathedral on Saturday, yards from the site, there was a real sense of shock.
	I have lived all my life in Glasgow, and I know that when we hurt, we grieve together and we mourn together. Today, all Glasgow and all Scotland are united in grief. I echo the Secretary of State’s tributes to the nine people whose deaths have been confirmed, and the whole House joins together to send a message of deep sympathy to their loved ones. We also remember the people who are still being treated in hospital.
	Today, with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar), I visited the command centre in Glasgow to thank the representatives of the police, fire and rescue and ambulance services. Their response to this tragedy has been exemplary. We also thank staff in Glasgow’s hospitals who provided care and comfort to the injured and their families. I pay tribute to them and to those who are still at the Clutha Vaults bar leading the recovery. I also pay tribute to my right hon. and personal Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), who assisted at the site on Friday night and was very moved in his television appearances. He has asked me to pass on his apologies today as he is on parliamentary business in the Philippines.
	Our minds are still focused on those who died and suffered injuries, but we must establish what happened on Friday night to prevent such tragedies in the future. The Secretary of State noted in his statement that the air accident investigation has begun, and the deputy chief inspector of the air accidents investigation branch has said we can expect an initial report soon. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether we can expect that report before Christmas?
	Questions are beginning to be asked in Glasgow, and families and others need answers. Will investigations now under way cover the manufacture and operation of this helicopter, including the circumstances of the incident but also implication for its future and further use? I recognise that the Secretary of State has embraced a strong cross-party approach to this issue, which I appreciate. Will he continue the cross-governmental and cross-party
	work that I think has united our country in showing that, whatever divides us, in moments such as this, we are prepared to work together?
	Finally, the Secretary of State indicated that Glasgow city council and the Scottish Government have already offered practical support to the residents of the city, particularly to those most involved. What support will the UK Government offer to Glasgow and to the families of the victims of the crash?
	The whole city of Glasgow and the people across Scotland and the United Kingdom are joined together in grief and shock. It has been a dark weekend, but as we heard at the Church of Scotland sermon at Glasgow cathedral on Sunday:
	“Darkness shall not snatch everything from us.”
	I know the people of my city of Glasgow. Out of this weekend, I know that it is not the darkness that will live on; it is the spirit of the people who did not turn and run from the Clutha Vaults pub, but who ran towards the danger and worked arm in arm to lift men and women to safety. Out of this tragedy, that is the most powerful tribute.

Alistair Carmichael: I commend the hon. Lady for her response and for the approach that she has taken. We have been in close contact throughout the course of this weekend and I very much expect that to continue. If I may say so, the ability of the Government, the Opposition and the Scottish National party to work together is the very least we can do in these circumstances. To take any other approach would be wholly inappropriate, given the magnificent response we have seen from the people of Glasgow.
	On the question of the early report of the air accidents investigation branch, it would be impossible to give any undertakings at the moment. I can say that the earliest possible publication of the interim report will be made. I very much hope that in the course of the investigation any information that can be supplied to the families will be supplied. Should there be any difficulties in that regard, my office, and I am sure the office of the Secretary of State for Transport will stand ready to address any issues.
	On the support to be given by Glasgow city council, the council is best placed to deliver that support. It has all the facilities in the communities and knows best where to find the people who need assistance and comfort. I am in regular contact with the leader of Glasgow city council and I value the strength of the working relationship between his office and mine. I am confident that should there be need for assistance from Her Majesty’s Government in Westminster, he will not be slow in asking. We will do everything within our power to give him the assistance he needs.

Charles Kennedy: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I thank the Secretary of State for Scotland for his well-judged comments and for the content of his statement, which we all endorse completely. He and I share a strong empathy and ongoing attachment to the city, through the university of Glasgow. I am sure he and others will agree that the sentiment and sense of the song popular down the generations, “I Belong to Glasgow”, had a
	particularly poignant ring to it in the heart of every Scot around the world during this sad St Andrew’s weekend.
	In rightly paying tribute to the emergency services and to ordinary citizens for what they have achieved, and are continuing to achieve, at considerable risk to themselves as a result of these appalling events, I ask my right hon. Friend to thank one other branch of public life that we, across the political spectrum, do not always praise in this House: the media. The broadcast media—BBC Scotland, in particular, but the commercial sector in Glasgow and the west of Scotland in general—and the print media have shown great responsibility and sensitivity to those involved, particularly to those who have lost loved ones. We hope that that will be maintained, and that the privacy of those who are having their loved ones returned to them will be respected in the future, too.

Alistair Carmichael: My right hon. Friend reminds me that he and I share the experience of having gone from the west highlands in our latter teenage years to be students at the university of Glasgow. I revisited my own time there recently and carry with me to this day fond memories of the warmth of welcome that was given to me and the strength of community I found as a west highlander arriving in Glasgow in the early 1980s. I am sure my right hon. Friend’s experience was the same, and I am certain that it is the strength of the community that has produced the remarkable response we have seen in the course of the last three or four days.
	With regard to the self-denying ordinance of the media outlets, I think my right hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to the restraint exhibited thus far, and I am sure that he shares my hope that that approach will continue.

Anas Sarwar: We will all have been shocked by the tragic scenes in my constituency at the heart of the great city of Glasgow on Friday night. Our thoughts and prayers are with all those individuals and families suffering at this really difficult time. Although we have seen the saddest of scenes, we have also seen the best of our citizens, with people not running away from the scene but running to it to help their fellow citizens—the perfect illustration of human kindness and human decency. I pay tribute to the brave men and women of our emergency services, who risk their own lives to protect the lives of others. We cannot even begin to thank them enough.
	On behalf of the people of Glasgow, I would also like to thank people for the kind messages of support we have had from people right across the UK—whether it be from Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Cardiff, Liverpool, Birmingham, Manchester or London—all saying that this weekend “We were all Glaswegians.” Will the Secretary of State tell us what additional support his Government will give to the people affected by this incident to ensure that they get the love, care, support, and also the answers, that they need?

Alistair Carmichael: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been an exceptionally eloquent advocate for his constituents and community over the course of this weekend. As to his question about extra support, as I said earlier, if the leadership of Glasgow city council sees an opportunity for us to assist, I stand open to do
	so in any way, within our capability, that I can. I know that the city council leader will doubtless be in contact with us.

Bob Stewart: Like everyone else in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, we are deeply saddened by what happened in Glasgow, which happens to be my father’s home town. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever happened to that helicopter, the pilot will have tried his level best to put it down safely and that it was probably a traumatic incident that disallowed him from putting it into the river or on a flat piece of ground?

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has a distinguished service history, which doubtless informs his views. Obviously, the purpose of having an air accidents investigation branch is to have people who can carry out these investigations. It would probably be ill advised of me at this juncture to speculate about the actual circumstances, which will doubtless become clear in the fullness of time.

Pamela Nash: I associate myself with the comments made across the House; my thoughts have clearly been with the emergency services, the victims and their families. Understandably, it is taking a lot of time safely and thoroughly to search the remains of the Clutha. Sadly, that leaves many families in limbo. Has the Secretary of State had assurances that the emergency services had all the equipment and expertise they required to ensure that no one was left alive in the Clutha in the immediate aftermath of the crash?

Alistair Carmichael: As I indicated in my statement, I understand that the search of the bar continues. The helicopter was removed from the roof while the hon. Lady and I were at the command centre this morning—we were able to watch it happening. The ongoing investigation will, of course, require a very delicate and detailed search. I completely understand the difficulties and frustration that that will cause for many people who remain anxiously waiting for news of their loved ones. In the long term, however, what we all want is to get to the truth of the matter. I know from my former professional experience, having worked at the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service early in my career, that the early stages of evidence gathering are the most important and can have a significant bearing on the ability to establish the cause of these incidents. I have no reason to believe—and nobody has suggested—that there was any under-resourcing of the emergency services operation. In fact, I would be astonished if that turned out to be the case.

Mark Reckless: The helicopter that came down so tragically has been described as a Scottish police helicopter. Will the Government, or the police, be able to add to any assistance that may be requested from Glasgow city council by helping Scotland to meet its operational requirement, either through the national service or with helicopters from England and Wales?

Alistair Carmichael: I understand that an offer of that sort has already been made, and that, in the meantime, cover is being provided from a variety of different loci until a replacement helicopter comes into service later this week.

Tom Harris: I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to join me in paying tribute to the chaplains of the police and fire and rescue services, the Rev. Neil Galbraith and Father Jim Thomson, who did an outstanding job in offering comfort and spiritual support not only to officers but to the families of victims.
	Have the Government, or, indeed, their accident investigators, a view in terms of risks versus value on the policy of requiring police helicopters to take part in routine air patrols over densely populated areas, rather than being deployed to deal with specific incidents?

Alistair Carmichael: I echo the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the chaplains. Today, I met social workers in Glasgow who have also been closely involved in giving comfort and counselling to those who need it, and I hope that they too may in time be able to avail themselves of any support that they may need. There is often a cost to those who have to give the counsel and the comfort, and not just to those who are most directly involved.
	Use of the helicopter is an operational matter for the chief constable of Police Scotland, who would be accountable for his decision to the Justice Secretary in the Scottish Government.

Philip Hollobone: I associate myself entirely with the remarks of both the Secretary of State and his shadow. Rescuing victims from collapsed buildings is an extremely complicated task, which in this case is being made far worse by the fact that a very heavy upside-down helicopter is on top of the rubble. A few years ago, through the fire service parliamentary scheme, I had the privilege of visiting the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh and observing the specialist training given to fire officers to enable them to go into collapsed rubble, locate victims and extract them. Does the Secretary of State agree that we are fortunate indeed to have in our United Kingdom some of the very best specialist skills in the world to deal with incidents such as this?

Alistair Carmichael: Indeed. Not only is there training of that sort, but rehearsals are conducted regularly by the city council, the various rescue services, the Procurator Fiscal Service, and all the other agencies. Since Friday night, we have seen the value of the work that is done in that regard. I am not familiar with the facility to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but in recent days we have observed the benefit of all the training that has been given to our emergency services.

John Robertson: As a Glaswegian, may I thank everybody for all their kind words, particularly the two Front Benchers? Perhaps a book of condolence in this place might not be a bad idea, so that we can show solidarity as a nation with the people of Glasgow.

Alistair Carmichael: The question of a book of condolence in this place would initially be a matter for the House authorities. It seems to me to be an entirely appropriate suggestion and anything I can do to assist it, I will happily do.

Pete Wishart: May I thank the Secretary of State for this very difficult statement and for allowing me early sight of it this
	afternoon? May I also join him, from these Benches, in paying tribute to the magnificent response from the emergency services? I do not think any of us will forget the deepening chill we felt on Friday evening as the true horror of these events became apparent. The response from the people of Glasgow to this tragedy has been nothing short of tremendous—people rushing to the scene of the accident instead of running away, the many instances of human kindness we have witnessed throughout the weekend, and the way this tragedy has united us and brought us together in adversity. Will the Minister join me in expressing gratitude to the people of Glasgow for the way they have responded and offer condolences to those who have been bereaved by this tragedy?

Alistair Carmichael: I have no hesitation in joining the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in expressing that view. What he says about the instances of human kindness in Glasgow is absolutely correct. In Glasgow this morning, I met police officers who told me about instances where colleagues of theirs simply going about their duty, or even off-duty, were approached by ordinary members of the public in supermarkets, on the street or wherever to simply ask how they were. At its most basic level, that is the sort of warmth and concern that typifies the people of Glasgow, and we have seen it at its best in the last few days.

Tom Clarke: May I join those who have offered their commiserations to the victims and their families and friends, and who have expressed their gratitude to the emergency services who contributed to responding to the sad events of this weekend? No one could have predicted that something like this would happen within 10 miles of my own constituency, with the appalling repercussions. I would like to add to the tributes and, if I may, I would like to express the view that public representatives from all backgrounds behaved impeccably, none more so than our right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). It is both poignant and appropriate that he is now in the Philippines witnessing aspects of another terrible tragedy. Glasgow itself contributed magnificently to the appeal for the Philippines, because it is a kind-hearted and a great-hearted city, and it knows that this House will be with it in good times and in bad.

Alistair Carmichael: There really is nothing I can add to the comments concerning the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). It struck me when the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) was speaking that his constituency and mine are just about as different as it is possible to get, but I am sure, knowing that helicopter incidents are by no means unknown in my constituency, that there would have been a shared experience and reaction to the news that broke on Friday night from Shetland all the way to the Mull of Galloway. It was something that united communities across Scotland.

Nigel Dodds: On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, may I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to the bereaved and our best wishes for a speedy recovery to those who have been injured? May I tell the Secretary of State and
	the House that, given the very close bonds that exist between the people of Northern Ireland and Scotland in particular, this morning in the Northern Ireland Assembly all the parties and all their representatives stood together in paying tribute to the emergency services and offering their deepest sympathies and best wishes to the people of Glasgow and Scotland?

Alistair Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman brings to our attention a very important aspect. The relationship between the west central belt of Scotland and Northern Ireland is a long and historic one which is not always the easiest, but it does bring with it links and connections that, at a time like this, are of great importance. It was for that reason that I was particularly pleased to receive a telephone call this morning from David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, expressing exactly the sentiments the right hon. Gentleman has just expressed.

Steve Rotheram: The great cities of Liverpool and Glasgow stand together in times of adversity, and once again the people of my city stand shoulder to shoulder with those suffering loss, trauma or injury from the tragic events over the weekend. One of the lessons we have learned from disasters affecting our citizens is the need to provide ongoing counselling and support. Despite this being primarily a role for Glasgow city council, can the Secretary of State ensure that resources are made available, should they be requested?

Alistair Carmichael: On the ability of Governments, be it here or in Edinburgh—or at local government level in Glasgow—to provide the facilities that are necessary, that is the very least that can be done, given the magnificence of the response we have seen from the people. The need for counselling is well understood and appreciated—as I have seen from my own professional experience—even in relation to the investigation of a much less dramatic road traffic accident. Such incidents can change the life of the police officer or ambulance person who has to attend them. That is well understood.

Glenda Jackson: As someone who has had the privilege of working and living in Glasgow, the humanity and heroism demonstrated by Glaswegians came as no surprise to me, but my constituents would want me to add their prayers and condolences to mine. It is a cliché but a none the less powerful one: Glasgow is a candle in the dark.

Alistair Carmichael: I fear that I may soon run out of superlatives when it comes to describing the behaviour of the people of Glasgow. I am sure that the hon. Lady’s words will have been heard in the city and very much appreciated.

Jim Sheridan: In recent years I have become a regular customer in the Clutha Vaults. In fact, last Saturday afternoon I was scheduled to meet some comrades there. I say “comrades” deliberately, because it was that kind of place. On many a Saturday afternoon, I solved the world’s problems in the Clutha—only to wake up on a Sunday morning to discover they were still there.
	Just recently, I met some firefighters in the Clutha Vaults who were expressing concern about the terms and conditions of their jobs. I hazard a guess that it was the same firefighters, and other emergency workers, who responded so quickly to what happened.
	The first victim of the tragedy was a man from Paisley, Gary Arthur, and I am sure that the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), will join me in passing on our condolences to Gary’s family. I want also to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy). He does not often frequent pubs, and I am sure he would be the first to admit that the Clutha Vaults would not have been on his list of priorities as a place to visit. But the important thing was that, although he could have driven by without anybody knowing, instead, he reacted. For me, that is a measure of the man.
	Glasgow needs a Clutha, so I ask the Secretary of State to work with the commercial sector to rebuild the Clutha Vaults from the ashes, because Glasgow dearly needs it.

Alistair Carmichael: I was privileged to meet the owner of the bar in Glasgow city chambers today, by happenstance as much as anything else, and he described to me the quite magnificent bar that I have heard described by others, which was famous in the city for being friendly and welcoming and for providing some great music and other sorts of entertainment. In fact, that is what was happening at the point when disaster struck. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would have been an adornment to it, and, like him, I want to see it resurrected.

Iain McKenzie: Naturally, our thoughts and prayers extend to the people of Glasgow at this time, including those who have lost loved ones or whose loved ones are injured in hospital. Inverclyde is sharing in Glasgow’s grief because we too have lost a member of our community. I speak of PC Kirsty Nelis, who lived in Inverkip in my constituency. Kirsty served with distinction as an officer in my constituency, and she had been commended for her bravery. Her family must be feeling a tremendous loss, and the community is grieving for her loss. She was well respected and a very good officer.

Alistair Carmichael: When I was at the command centre this morning, I briefly met Sir Stephen House, the chief constable of Police Scotland, who had come directly from meeting members of the families of the two officers who were killed. He was clearly very affected by that meeting, and it struck me that the police exist very much as a family. That is why I thought it appropriate to make reference in my statement to the fact that the police in Glasgow are dealing not only with the loss suffered by members of the public, but with the loss of members of their own community and family. For that reason, their response, at a professional and an emotional level, deserves recognition. I am sure that they will get all the support they need from their chief constable and other senior officers in coming to terms with their loss.

Tom Greatrex: It was my privilege earlier this year to spend some of my police parliamentary scheme placement with the Police Scotland helicopter branch. Indeed, I
	spent time with colleagues of those who have sadly lost their lives. I saw at first hand the incredibly important work that the branch does in urban and rural areas, often saving lives. We should not forget that today. While the Secretary of State for Transport is still in his place, may I also make a point about the air accidents investigation branch? It has been pointed out that the branch has a large amount of work to deal with on other incidents as well as this one. Can the House be assured that all the resources and support that the branch needs will be forthcoming?

Alistair Carmichael: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Should he have any concerns about that at any stage, I would ask him to come directly to me or to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to let us know about them.

Michael Connarty: I echo all the sentiments of condolence that have been expressed so far. My constituents from West Lothian in east Scotland, and from the Falkirk district of central Scotland, share the sense of shock at this tragedy that was thrust with violence into the scene of celebration at the Clutha Vaults in Glasgow on Friday night. We also share the appreciation of and pride in the courageous response of the citizens. In fact, I saw a clip on television in which I was sure I could see my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) in the doorway of the pub, handing people out who had been injured. The people who helped in that way did so without regard to the danger to themselves. I also pay tribute to the ongoing work of the police and rescue services.
	Will the Secretary of State make every effort to ensure that the full information is given at the earliest opportunity to the families of the injured and deceased, including to the families of those who were missing for some time? I say that because I had a close family member who was involved in the terrible tragedy at Dunblane, and the lack of information at the time caused a great deal of hurt and anger. Will he also pass on to the editor of one Scottish newspaper what I hope will be the unhappiness of the House at the distasteful suggestion in his paper today that an act of malice involving a laser pen might have been part of the cause of the tragedy? That suggestion is distasteful and should be deprecated.

Alistair Carmichael: Speculation at this stage of the proceedings serves no purpose, and I absolutely deprecate any suggestion of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) said earlier, the media response so far has, by and large, been responsible and commendable, and I hope that that will continue.
	I very much agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) about the importance of passing information on to the families most directly concerned. I do not like coming back constantly to my professional experience, but I know how important that is because I have been there and seen the difference that that flow of information makes to families who are having to come to terms with their grief and loss. However, all the professionals must strike a balance
	between providing information at an early stage and providing information that they can be sure is accurate. That is not an easy balance, but I am sure it will be met by the air accidents investigation branch and the members of the Procurator Fiscal Service in the west of Scotland, who will doubtless have, at some stage, to conduct a fatal accident inquiry into this matter.

Gemma Doyle: This follows on from the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash). I know that the Secretary of State appreciates the frustration and distress of families who were waiting over the weekend for news of their missing relatives, so can he provide an assurance that the search and rescue and recovery operation, which clearly was undertaken with great professionalism, was carried out as quickly as possible? If he is not in a position to give that assurance just now, will he do so at some point?

Alistair Carmichael: What I can tell the hon. Lady is that that was very much at the heart of the discussions that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and I had with senior police officers at the command centre today. They must be scrupulous in the way in which they follow protocol, because, obviously, the consequences of their getting it wrong would be simply unthinkable. However, I can give the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) the assurance that they very much understood the importance of getting information out to families at the earliest possible opportunity.

Brian H Donohoe: First, may I add my condolences to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives? Many years ago, along with the then convenor of police in Strathclyde, Jimmy Jennings, I fought hard for the maintenance of the helicopter service, so I would not want any possibility of a knee-jerk reaction grounding of these pieces of kit. As someone who has operated with that piece of kit, I can tell the Secretary of State that it is the best piece of kit that any police force can have. I would not want any knee-jerk reaction to ground any of the helicopters, even though this is the third accident within Strathclyde.

Alistair Carmichael: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that in other parts of the United Kingdom that helicopter remains in service. It is a helicopter that is widely used not just in this country, but elsewhere in the world, for this very sort of work—for police, ambulance service and other sorts of work. I might be wrong, but I think I am correct in saying that the Scottish ambulance service continues to use this same helicopter. Obviously, should the investigations of the AAIB disclose something that would require it to be grounded, I am certain that it would be. It is not that long since, on the same precautionary principle, there was a grounding for a very short period, which would be appropriate.

Fiona O'Donnell: My mother and father grew up in the Gorbals area of Glasgow. They said it was where they learnt the meaning of the word “community”, and my goodness we have seen the strength of that community since the awful events of Friday. I am aware that the Secretary of State has had the opportunity to sign a book of condolence in Glasgow. May I add my voice to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) in asking for a book of condolence to be opened here too, so that not only members in this place and the other place, but the whole Westminster community has the opportunity to send their condolences to all those people whose lives were shattered on Friday night and to express our admiration for that sense of community, and our gratitude and respect for the emergency services?

Alistair Carmichael: As I said to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West, I very much welcome the idea, but it is a matter for the House authorities. Should there be any difficulty with that, I would be more than happy to make Dover house available for the same purpose.

Jim Cunningham: rose—

Mr Speaker: Just before I call the hon. Gentleman, I simply mention that I have heard what has been said and I can see no difficulty whatever with the idea. It makes a great deal of sense and should be capable of being introduced without delay. My understanding from past precedent is that ordinarily such a book of condolence would be lodged in the Library, and that might suit Members. An alternative might be that it could be lodged in my office. If we are agreed on the principle, it is simply a case of facilitating it in practice, and I will attend to that.

Jim Cunningham: On behalf of the people of Coventry, may I offer our condolences and support to the people of Glasgow? Coventry is no stranger to these situations, as we have seen from the war. More importantly, about 15 or 16 years ago, an aircraft came down on a Willenhall council estate and killed five people. Anybody who has experienced such an accident, particularly if they are an MP or a member of the public, will know that it is very traumatic and that it takes a long time to recover from, so the area needs all the help that it can get.

Alistair Carmichael: I will, if I may, tie the hon. Gentleman’s comments to your own, Mr Speaker. It is apparent that this is a shared experience. Across the United Kingdom, there are communities that have suffered loss and grief from similar such incidents. I know from the conversations I had with police officers in Glasgow this morning that they have been contacted by officers from other parts of the country. It is clear that the incident affects the whole of the United Kingdom. It is not for me to suggest how the House authorities make such decisions, but as a Member of this House, I personally would be very pleased if they were prepared to proceed in such a way.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Secretary of State and colleagues both for what they have said and for the way in which they have said it.

Point of Order

Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that in October I raised a point of order with you, Mr Speaker, relating to the failure or refusal of the Minister for Immigration to reply to letters that I had sent him. You spoke very firmly indeed about the importance of the responsiveness of Ministers to Members of this House. I raised that point of order having advised the office of the Minister for Immigration that I would do so. After that point of order, on the two cases to which I referred, I got letters the next day signed by the Minister, although the content was unsatisfactory. Since then, all letters that have been sent to me on notepaper with the name on top of the Minister for Immigration have been signed by somebody called Lord Taylor of Holbeach. They have been signed with courtesy, but if they are on the notepaper of the Minister for Immigration, they are not authentic unless they are signed by that Minister. There is no doubt in my mind that what has happened in this past month or more is an act of petty spite by the Minister, because of the fact that I raised a point of order.
	Mr Speaker, I do not mind the Minister insulting me; I have been insulted by better people than the Minister whose main claim for distinction was having sustained a fracture when dancing on a table, but it is an insult to my constituents that they are treated in that way and, after you spoke in the way that you did, Mr Speaker, it is an insult to you. That being so, I ask for your ruling and comments on the way in which the Minister for Immigration has been conducting himself so that in future my constituents can get the service to which they have a right. The Home Secretary has not signed a single letter to me in three and a half years, and I can put up with that, because she obviously regards herself as superior to me, but I do not regard the Minister as superior to me, and that being so I want him to sign the letters.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order, of which I did not have advance notice although I am, of course, aware of the chronological sequence of events about which he has just reminded the House. Whether any discourtesy was intended or not—I confess that I do not know, although I have no reason to think that a Minister would want to behave in
	a way that could be thought to be petty or spiteful—it seems to me, frankly, to be proper form for a letter sent on the headed notepaper of a particular Minister to be signed by that Minister. Although not all Members will necessarily be as exacting in their requirements as the right hon. Gentleman, if he regards it as proper that he be addressed in such a way it would make a great deal of sense, in terms of making the world go round and treating with courtesy someone with 43 years’ uninterrupted service in the House, to do things in the way that he has asked. It should not be a matter of any controversy from now on. I hope that the Home Secretary can pass on the message to the Minister for Immigration and that the Minister for Immigration will behave in a seemly manner both towards the right hon. Gentleman and towards other Members. Perhaps we can leave it there for today.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	Driving Whilst Disqualified (Repeat Offenders) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Rehman Chishti, supported by Henry Smith, Keith Vaz, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Ruffley, Jeremy Lefroy and Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to allow Magistrates’ Courts discretion to refer a third or subsequent offence for driving whilst disqualified to the Crown Court for sentencing; and to grant the Crown Court the jurisdiction to impose a custodial sentence of up to two years for such offences.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 139).

Causing Death by Driving Whilst Disqualified Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Rehman Chishti, supported by Henry Smith, Keith Vaz, Gordon Henderson, Mr David Ruffley, Jeremy Lefroy and Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to increase the maximum penalty for causing death by driving whilst disqualified to fourteen years and an unlimited fine.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 140).

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Second Reading

Michael Penning: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Before I start my speech on Second Reading, let me, too, pay tribute to the firefighters and professional emergency services in Glasgow. As a former firefighter, I know the training that those in the emergency services go through, but nothing prepares anyone for the scenes they will have encountered when they arrived. I have had a huge and devastating disaster in my constituency, at Buncefield, and the fact that the public went in rather than walking away proves what a great nation we all live in today.
	As I am a Minister of the Crown and an MP who is dyslexic, it was an interesting experience to be given the Mesothelioma Bill. It is an honour and a privilege, however, and I hope that colleagues will bear with me if I occasionally get the word “mesothelioma” wrong.
	I think we can all agree that working people should have proper protection from personal injury or disease arising as a result of their work. When the principle is breached through negligence or a breach of statutory duty, it is obviously right that that person should be compensated by their employer or their employer’s insurer. However, many sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma, the aggressive cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, are unable to find an employer or relevant insurer to claim compensation from. They developed a fatal disease through the fault of their employer yet they are still unable to seek compensation through the civil courts because the responsible employer no longer exists or the records are insufficient to show who the insurer might have been.
	My brief states that the “previous Administration” made some noise about this issue over the years, but in fact previous Administrations have done so—yet there is still no provision on the statute book. I am confident, however, that we can get these measures on the statute book as soon as possible and I shall explain why in my speech.

John Healey: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am pleased to see this Bill, only three years after the Labour consultation, and I am particularly pleased that the Minister is in charge of its progress through this House. Will he admit that this is not the scheme that Labour published in February 2010, that almost all the concessions the industry sought during the consultation have been conceded by the Government and that this is a now a scheme that shows that the Government have not stood up to the interests of the big insurance companies?

Michael Penning: No, no and no. The previous Administration undertook their consultation just before the general election. I will not get into party politics, but as the former Minister started on the subject, I will continue on it. After 13 years, suddenly there was a consultation, which was very wide ranging and did not develop the scheme. I cannot find out exactly what the previous Government wanted to do, because under the rules I am not allowed to see that, but all the
	indications are that what they would have proposed would not have passed into statute without huge cost to the taxpayer, or to people being insured today. None of that cost is incurred under the Bill.
	The Bill is part of the ongoing commitment by the Government and the insurance industry to correct the market failure that everyone accepts there has been in respect of mesothelioma cases. It tackles the problem in two ways: first, by providing a power to set up a payment scheme and, secondly, by providing the possibility of establishing a technical committee that will, where there are disputes, make decisions that are binding on the insurance industry.
	Diffuse mesothelioma is a fatal disease caused exclusively—this is crucial to the Bill—by exposure to asbestos. It has a long latency period, often of between 40 and 50 years, but after diagnosis average life expectancy is, sadly, only eight to nine months, with very few exceptions living beyond that. The long delay between exposure and developing the disease, combined with inconsistent record keeping in the insurance industry, means that too often people struggle to trace an employer—the employer may no longer exist—or the insurer who provided the employer’s public liability insurance, against which they can make a claim for civil damages. The insurance industry and the Government recognise that this is unjust, and that a provision must be brought forward in the Bill.
	The obvious question is: why is legislation being introduced? Despite recognition of the failure of the market, the insurance industry has not been able to put forward a scheme of its own that would compensate those concerned. Disputes between insurers, and the different interests of companies that still offer employers’ liability cover, or active insurers, and those no longer offering cover, or run-off insurers, have prevented the industry from agreeing a voluntary levy; I think that was looked at in the consultation.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Michael Penning: I want to make progress. I am very conscious of the time, so I will not take an awful lot of interventions. Colleagues will have the opportunity to speak, either later on Second Reading or in the later stages of the Bill.
	Industry representatives asked for legislation imposing a levy to support the payment scheme. The Bill establishes a payment scheme that will make substantial lump-sum payments to eligible sufferers from mesothelioma—and, crucially, eligible dependants of sufferers. The scheme will be funded through a levy on insurers active in the employers’ liability market, meaning that the active employers’ liability insurance market will bear the cost of the scheme.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that the insurance companies are trying to sell this as a generous scheme, but all estimates say that it will be worth about £350 million. Last year alone, the profits of Lloyd’s of London were £2.7 billion. Does he not think that, from that perspective, the insurance companies are getting away very cheaply?

Michael Penning: Nothing is perfect, but there was nothing there before, and if we had carried on the way we were going, nothing would be there, going forward,
	for people who are suffering so much, and who need help today.
	[Interruption.] 
	It is no good the hon. Gentleman chuntering; he has had an opportunity to intervene, and perhaps later he will make a speech. That would be more useful than chuntering. As a friend of mine, he should know better, because I will not respond to that sort of chuntering. It just wastes time in the House.
	The scheme is intended to be an alternative to seeking civil damages, which we still want people to do, if the opportunity arises. The driving principle is that where adequate records are not available—this is why the scheme was developed—the disease has been diagnosed, and there has been negligence or a breach of the statutory duty, a person should still be able to access payment for their injury. That is the crucial part of the Bill. Payments should be made, wherever possible, to the sufferers themselves, while they are still alive; I think that everyone would want that, but sadly it has not been happening. The scheme will therefore be straightforward, simple, and quick to process claims.
	Sadly, we expect roughly 28,500 deaths from mesothelioma between July 2012 and March 2024, when the scheme is expected to come to its conclusion. We are seeing a peak at the moment.

Nigel Dodds: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Penning: I will give way one last time, but then I will have to make some progress.

Nigel Dodds: I simply wanted to say, given the Minister’s experience in Northern Ireland—the Bill extends to Northern Ireland and the Assembly has passed a legislative consent motion—that many people there will warmly welcome the fact that legislation is being put in place. I would have liked it to go further, but I commend the Government for bringing it forward.

Michael Penning: I am very pleased that I gave way to the right hon. Gentleman. The legislative consent process has taken place in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, which is important in ensuring that the Bill can go forward.
	If the Bill is passed before the end of the year, the first payments could be made by July 2014, which I think is what we all want. Around 300 people a year could receive an average payment of £115,000, less benefit recovery, which will be around £20,000 on average. Timing is key, because the number of mesothelioma cases is expected to peak in 2015. We must act now and launch the scheme as soon as we can, with the regulations made as soon as possible after Christmas. I expect the regulations to be in place by April 2014.
	Let us look quickly at the eligibility criteria. First, an individual has to have been diagnosed with the disease on or after 25 July 2012. Secondly, they were employed at the time of exposure to asbestos, and that exposure was due to negligence or breach of statutory duty on the part of the employer. Thirdly, they have not brought a claim for civil damages against an employer or the employer’s insurer. Fourthly, they are unable to do so—this is not a replacement for civil action. Fifthly, they are not already receiving damages or other payments relating to the disease from another source.
	Eligible dependants of diffuse mesothelioma sufferers may apply to the scheme in cases where the person with the disease has died before making an application or while the application was being processed. Eligible dependants will receive exactly the same amount of money as the sufferer would have received.
	A sufferer must have been diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012 to be eligible for the scheme. There are always difficulties with cut-off dates, but without one the costs would be unlimited. I know that it is unfortunate, but we have to be pragmatic as we move forward. With a cut-off date, we can proceed with the agreements.

John Woodcock: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Penning: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make some progress.
	The date of 25 July 2012 was when the Government announced that we would be setting up the payments scheme and so created a reasonable expectation that eligible people diagnosed with the disease on or after that date would receive a payment. The Bill does not, and cannot, look to respond to all the people who have been affected by asbestos diseases. The issue of individuals who have developed asbestos-related diseases but cannot trace a third party will have to be addressed outside the Bill. The Bill is not an appropriate instrument—I know that some people think that it is—for taking that forward.
	Mesothelioma is a distinctive disease, because it is always fatal and always caused by asbestos. That allows for a straightforward scheme to be put in place as soon as possible. A streamlined scheme, such as the one we have brought forward, could not cover all the other diseases. It would otherwise be very complicated and expensive for the taxpayer.

David Anderson: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Penning: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I am not going to give way.
	The costs of other schemes would be disproportionate and the agreements we have with the insurance companies —I know that some colleagues do not like them—would make that very difficult. We are 100% committed to delivering on the Bill. This measure represents a huge step forward, and it should be recognised as such. I thank the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who is no longer in his place, for doing so.
	The scheme will make payments to eligible people according to a fixed tariff and according to the age of the person who has the disease. The payment will be based on roughly 75% of the amount of average civil damages. Those who have followed the Bill’s progress through the other House will realise that it raised the figure from 70% to 75%. The figure of 75% is probably is not as important as the 3% levy, which is very important.

Nia Griffith: rose—

Michael Penning: I will not give way.
	Setting the payments at the right rate is crucial to the success of the Bill and the ultimate establishment of a payment scheme. The payment rate of 75% of average
	civil damages takes the levy right to limit of what insurers have indicated they could absorb without passing the costs on to new businesses—an absolutely crucial issue. It is the absolute maximum that would be realistic within a fixed-payment scheme.
	The levy on insurers will be imposed on active employers’ liability insurers at large today, not the individual insurers who took out the premiums, who were covered in cases that come under the scheme. The scheme could be jeopardised if the levy were set disproportionately high. That could delay the introduction of the scheme, preventing the payment mechanism from being in place at the time of the peak of mesothelioma deaths, which, according to the actuaries, will be around 2015. I am sure we will debate that as we go through the Bill, but I hope that that will not detract from the importance of ensuring that it gets on to the statute book as soon as possible. As everybody in the House will understand, the scheme must strike a careful balance in making a substantial payment to eligible people while ensuring that the contribution made by the insurers is fair and not excessive. Crucially, the proposed levy rate must not be so high as to risk increased costs on business, thereby adversely affecting British businesses, which no one in the House would want.
	In addition to the payment scheme and the levy, the Bill makes provision for the possibility—I stress, the possibility—of establishing a technical committee to adjudicate on making binding decisions on disputes between insurers. I think we would all prefer that to these matters being in the courts.
	The Bill and the principles behind it merit the support of the whole House.

Gemma Doyle: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Penning: I am coming to the end of my comments.
	We have no doubt that the principle of the Bill—[Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Front Benchers chuntering; they will have their opportunity to speak in a minute. Let us just get on. If the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) wants to speak, as lots of Members do, she will be welcome to do so. That is why I am not giving way every five seconds.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister is expecting to speak for a second time in this debate, but he is not prepared to give way during his speech now. Can you confirm that it is a matter of discretion for the whole House as to whether somebody is allowed to speak for a second time in a debate?

Dawn Primarolo: If a Minister seeks to speak for a second time, it is with the leave of the House. As the hon. Gentleman knows, whether any Members, including Ministers, decide to give way to an intervention is entirely a matter for them and not for the Chair.

Michael Penning: I am conscious that lots of colleagues want to speak in this debate, which has been shortened because of the two very important statements that took
	place earlier. I have given way three times and there will be plenty of opportunities for Members to speak. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has probably got his press release, yet again, but that is unnecessary in this sort of debate.
	I hope that the House will see the urgent need to push this Bill through and get it through its Committee and Report stages so that it goes on to the statute book and I am able to move the regulations that are under consultation as soon as possible. It can then provide compensation for our constituents who have been suffering from this terrible disease or, if they have died, for their dependants who need assistance from the scheme.

Kate Green: I am very pleased to follow the Minister in opening this debate. As he has said, this Bill marks an important step on the long road to justice for mesothelioma sufferers and their families. I welcome the progress that has been made so far, but the Minister is right to say that we should take this opportunity to see whether we can go a little further before the Bill completes its passage through the House.
	I am very pleased to see so many colleagues present, many of whom represent constituencies where the disease is prevalent as a result of their industrial history. I know it will be important for colleagues on both sides of the House to be able to speak about their communities’ experiences, over many decades, of the consequences of this terrible disease. Although I totally share the Minister’s wish for the Bill to make progress through this House so that a scheme can be put in place and payments can flow to victims in the next few months, I do not think we are so pressed for time this evening that we should not give the opportunity to every one of our colleagues to make the case on behalf of their constituents, because this issue is felt very deeply in many of the communities they represent.
	I know that many colleagues will want to join me in paying particular tribute to the asbestos victims support groups, which have done so much to campaign for a fairer deal for victims and to keep parliamentarians briefed, not only for this debate, but over many years.

Kevan Jones: Will my hon. Friend also add the congratulations of the House to the trade unions, which have not only campaigned on behalf of asbestos victims, but won literally millions of pounds of compensation for people who would not have got it unless they had been members of a trade union?

Kate Green: I am very happy to join in that tribute to the work of trade unions, a number of which have worked over many years not only to advocate the cause of individual victims, but to maintain the pressure that has ultimately led to the scheme under discussion.
	I also pay tribute to our colleagues in the House of Lords who have already carefully scrutinised and, as the Minister said, improved the Bill. In particular, I acknowledge the work of my noble Friend Lord McKenzie, who, under the previous Labour Government, launched the consultation that has resulted in this Bill. I pay tribute to his assiduousness and his determination to secure justice for the victims of this terrible disease. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord Freud, who has demonstrated
	his equal determination and commitment to righting a long-standing and terrible wrong by introducing the proposed scheme.
	The Bill follows a series of earlier pieces of legislation passed by previous Labour Governments to improve the lot of victims of asbestos-related and industrial diseases. In 1969, Labour introduced the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969, requiring employers to insure against liability for injury or disease to their employees arising out of their employment. In 1979, Labour introduced and secured the passage of the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which provides lump sum compensation payments to people suffering from certain dust-related diseases or, if they have died, to their dependants, when a claim for damages is not possible because the employer or employers are no longer in business. In 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme, which provides lump sum payments for people suffering from diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation from other sources.

John Woodcock: I am really glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned the progress made by the previous Labour Government, because so many of us, including those who became Members before me, have wanted to see faster progress and have pushed for it for so long. The Minister was simply not right to say from the Dispatch Box that nothing was done in the period leading up to this Bill.

Kate Green: It is right to say that progress could have been faster and that more could have been done, but we should not overlook the fact that, over four decades, it is Labour Governments who have, until now, made the progress that has been made. As I have said, it was my noble Friend Lord McKenzie who began the process of consultation that has brought us to where we are today.

Lorely Burt: I am very supportive of the Bill, as I was of previous ones—my grandfather died of pneumoconiosis—but do the Opposition welcome the Bill and will they support it in the House tonight?

Kate Green: I am happy to answer that question, as I would have done during my speech. The Opposition welcome the progress that has been made, and we will not oppose the Bill this evening, because we share with the Minister and Members from both sides of the House a wish to process payments and get them to victims as quickly as we can. That is not, however, the same as saying that the Bill cannot be improved further. We believe that it can be improved, and I will outline some of our suggestions for how that might be achieved.
	As I have said, the Bill has already passed through the House of Lords, and the work done in that place has undoubtedly improved it already. We will support the Bill on Second Reading, but it does not go quite as far as necessary in bringing justice for victims. We will therefore seek further improvements as the Bill continues its parliamentary passage. I want to make it very clear that we are not doing so to score political points or to delay the Bill unnecessarily. Everyone understands the importance of establishing a scheme and getting payments flowing as quickly as possible. However, this House will
	fail the victims of this terrible disease if we do not do the best we can to recognise their appalling suffering through a fair system of payments.
	Victims have been left for years without any compensation, while the insurance industry has continued to benefit from billions of pounds in premiums. It certainly seems to the Opposition that the Government have not yet done everything that could be done and all that needs to be achieved, despite the progress that has been made and the undoubted good intentions of the Minister and his colleague in the House of Lords.

David Anderson: The Minister spoke about the fact that insurance companies want to keep the 3% levy because they are worried about the ongoing impact on them. Is not the reality that, for 50 years at least, insurance companies got in money that they were not spending? That money has evaporated, but we should now turn to it so that people can get 100% compensation, not the paltry 75% that is on offer.

Kate Green: My hon. Friend is right. Over many decades, insurance companies have taken in premiums and in every way resisted paying out to victims. It is good to have reached the point at which the industry is finally facing up to its collective responsibility, but it still has a long way to go.
	The Minister rightly described mesothelioma as a cruel and vicious disease that is caused by exposure to asbestos, and as a long-tail disease that is diagnosed years and often decades after it has been contracted. It is invariably fatal and, once a diagnosis is made, cruelly quick: following diagnosis, most victims have only about nine months of life left. The effects of the illness are horrifying for sufferers, and for the loved ones who watch them die. The true disgrace is that the link to asbestos has been known for many decades.
	One consequence of the long period for which the disease can lie dormant is that, following a diagnosis, it is of course more difficult to attach liability, given that the circumstances that brought about the condition often took place many years previously. As a result, many sufferers have until now been forced to rely only on statutory payments and welfare benefits. Although I am pleased that the industry will at last take a small step towards meeting the obligations it owes to sufferers, it is only right and proper that it should finally do so.
	I understand that, as the Minister said, the scheme will be established as one of last resort, which is to be relied on only if no employer or insurer can be traced. That might be a reasonable position for the industry, but we must ensure that it does not exacerbate the pain and difficulty for claimants.
	During the short period from diagnosis to death, sufferers become desperately ill, yet at the same time they are expected to go to often huge lengths to trace a former employer, perhaps from many years back; to identify that employer’s insurer, perhaps via the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office; to obtain the necessary medical records and wait the 40 days that agencies have to respond to such requests; and then, ultimately, to take legal advice and access the scheme. I think we can see how that would eat into the tragically limited time remaining to sufferers following diagnosis, so we must do all we can to speed up and smooth the process.
	I recognise the progress made in speeding up the process and helping victims to trace their employers’ insurers. Following its introduction in 1999, many insurers signed up to a voluntary employers’ liability code of practice, but none the less tracing rates remained deeply disappointing, never exceeding 50%. In 2012, the success rate was just over 34%; and even accounting for those cases now proceeding via ELTO, the success rate in 2012 still reached only 61%. Clearly, there is considerable scope for better support for victims to pursue insurers.
	It seems, however, that the industry, in its negotiations with Ministers, has sought to do the very minimum it can get away with to make amends to sufferers. As noted, payments will be set at just 75% of average civil damages—admittedly, as the Minister said, an uplift on the 70% initially proposed. It is claimed that the industry cannot afford to pay more without passing on the additional cost to current employers’ liability customers. The notion that this multi-billion-pound industry, which has been collecting premiums for decades while doing all it can to avoid payouts and which is to be gifted £17 million by the Government under this Bill and lent a further £30 million to help with the scheme’s introduction and the smoothing of the first year’s payments, cannot and should not be more generous is simply not credible.

John Leech: Does the hon. Lady have a view on what level of compensation could be paid without insurance companies passing on the cost to current policyholders?

Kate Green: There are two questions wrapped up in that one question. First, on present figures, what does it appear the industry can afford? I will say something about that in a moment. Secondly, does the industry have to pass on the cost to its customers, or could it choose to absorb it? We are talking about roughly 10% of the total value to the industry of the employers’ liability market. I appreciate that that is not a small sum, but as colleagues have pointed out, the industry has had decades to accumulate profits as a result of the premiums it has collected.

Kevan Jones: It is not just about the accumulated profits to which my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) have referred: insurance companies are still making huge profits. Lloyd’s of London made £2.7 billion in 2012, Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million between January and June 2012, and Aviva made £605 million between January and June 2013. These companies are not unprofitable, so their attitude to a levy costing £350 million is an insult to the victims.

Kate Green: I hope we bring the industry to understand that it would be right and proper for it to be more generous to the victims than the current scheme appears.

Hywel Williams: In contrast to the previous speaker, the hon. Lady is being generous in giving way. She will be aware that compensation under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 is 100% of liabilities available before the courts. Should that not be the guide?

Kate Green: I can say that the Opposition will be pushing for payment levels to be increased, and we believe they can be, given that the industry has accepted that a levy of 3% of gross written premiums is affordable and given that the impact assessment has shown that payments set at even 80% or 90% of average civil damages are affordable within a 10-year period. The Minister said that the proportion of GWP that the levy represented was more important than the 75% level derived from that 3% figure. It is our reading of the figures, however, that there is scope for the industry to be more generous, even within its own accepted cap of 3% of GWP. I hope to explore that in more detail with the Minister in Committee. As the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) said, there is a strong moral argument, of course, for setting payment at 100%, as is the case, for example, for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau scheme—all the more so because under the Bill recovery of any benefits paid will be set at 100%.

Debbie Abrahams: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Is this not a familiar tune we are hearing from the Government? Whether it is, in this case, the insurance companies, or, in the case of the statement earlier, the energy companies, they do not seem prepared to stand up to powerful vested interests or to stand up for vulnerable people in need of support.

Kate Green: I hope that collectively the House can strengthen the Minister’s arm and send a strong message to the industry that we do not consider the scheme yet to be good enough and that we expect and demand improvements.

Edward Leigh: Obviously, we want to try to help people who are suffering—everybody has accepted that—but these are complex areas. The hon. Lady has spent much of her speech attacking the insurance industry, which might be fair enough, but it rather raises the question: what was going on during the 13 years Labour was in power?

Kate Green: First, the hon. Gentleman might have missed the history I just rehearsed of the legislative process to date, and secondly, he is right that the condition and the legal circumstances surrounding it have been extremely complicated—there has been considerable litigation in this area, not just in the UK but internationally. I share his frustration that it has taken so many years to bring justice to victims, but it is not true that no efforts were being made. In particular, as colleagues have noted, in making what progress has been made, we have been powerfully supported by our colleagues in the trade union movement, so there has certainly not been utter indolence when it comes to securing justice for victims.

John Healey: This might help my hon. Friend. I am very impressed by the case she is making about the need for the scheme to be simple, smooth, speedy and more generous. Does she know that, in its briefing, the Association of British Insurers has said today that it would expect the scheme to run for about 40 years and therefore that any calculation of what could be afforded as a level of compensation—and to whom—should be seen in that context and not that of the short four-year term on which the Government have so far based their calculations?

Kate Green: Four years certainly seems a remarkably short period over which to cost the scheme, given the many decades over which the industry expects it to continue. It is a concern—one that we will discuss further in Committee—that the figures seem to have changed since the Bill moved from the Lords to the Commons, and changed back again, in a manner that might be said to favour a particular outcome that suits the industry. We will want to question that in more detail when considering the range of figures being presented.
	While the Bill has been proceeding, the Ministry of Justice has been consulting on its proposals to expedite and streamline the process for taking legal action, and to introduce fixed fees for mesothelioma cases, and we have real concerns about the MOJ’s plans for the fate of the scheme before us. Evidence suggests that fixed fees are likely to exert a downward pressure on the level of civil damages, notwithstanding the 10% uplift in damages that has not yet been applied to mesothelioma suffers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Indeed, our suspicions are borne out by the view of the insurance industry that this Bill and the MOJ process should be seen as part of a single package.
	I recognise that the Minister cannot answer for changes that the MOJ will make to court rules, but it is of concern that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of those changes. I warn him that as the Bill proceeds we will seek assurances that the MOJ’s actions will not adversely affect the scheme in the Bill. Moreover we should remember that these already quite meagre payouts, which are already to be reduced by benefits recovery, will be further depleted by legal fees and fees for medical certificates. We are anxious that the deal looks less and less good for sufferers, and we will return to those points in Committee.
	As has been noted, hundreds of sufferers will lose out because the scheme does not take effect until 25 July 2012, which was when the Government published their response to the consultation set up in 2010 under Labour. Although I recognise the time spent by Ministers in detailed negotiations with the industry, we must recognise that between February 2010 when the consultation opened and July 2012, more than 700 people will have died without access to justice. We therefore believe there is a strong argument for the earlier start date of February 2010, and we do not think it credible to suggest that an industry whose very purpose and lifeblood is the anticipation and management of potential risk has not been preparing for the likely introduction of a scheme such as this since the date of the initial consultation.
	As the debate in the House of Lords exposed, this is not a matter of insurers reserving policy—I accept that a more rigorous framework might apply to provision for risk—but a simple matter of business planning. Surely it would have been prudent for insurers to have assumed from 2010 that there would be a payment system with which they would be required to comply, and to have made provision for best and worst-case scenarios. That, too, is a matter we expect to explore further in Committee.
	I am sure the Minister will assert that there is a cost to the industry of an earlier start date, and I hope we will have some definitive figures for that. Lord Freud said the costs at 100% of civil damages would be £119 million, and he undertook to calculate figures at the lower percentage—then 70%—introduced by this
	scheme. It would be helpful to know from the Minister before we go into Committee what progress has been made with those calculations at the level now proposed of 75%.

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend, quite rightly, points out the faux concerns about cost and affordability. Does she agree that insurers are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart? For many years, they received payments for exactly this eventuality, and they should therefore be made to compensate those who are now sufferers.

Kate Green: I can only agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the industry does not assume that the House will let it get away with the minimum it can propose. I assure the House that the mood of many colleagues from all sides is determinedly that we should do the best we can for victims—we and the industry owe them that.
	As I think the Minister has alluded to, there is also a debate to be had about the scope of the Bill. It will exclude the self-employed unless they can determine they were de facto employees, and exclude family members who may have been contaminated—for example because they washed a brother’s or husband’s overalls. It will cover only mesothelioma and exclude all other asbestos-related illnesses. I heard what the Minister said about that, and again, I hope we can explore that issue further in Committee. Lord Freud offered welcome assurance about Ministers’ intentions in relation to other forms of asbestos-related disease when the Bill passed through the House of Lords, and I hope we will be able to secure firm commitments from the Minister on that.

Michael Penning: rose—

Kate Green: I sense he may be about to give me that assurance.

Michael Penning: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady on her second point. On her first point, it is right that the House has those calculations before we go into Committee, and I will ensure those figures are made available to her in the Library.

Kate Green: I am grateful to the Minister. Taking advantage of his generosity, he will see the amendments that the Opposition table in the next few hours, so will he bring forward figures for a range of different scenarios, including 75%, 80%, 90% and 100% of average civil compensation?

Michael Penning: I ask the hon. Lady please not to push me too far; but I accept those points and my civil servants are listening.

Kate Green: I would never push the Minister too far.
	We had hoped to have received fuller details of the scheme’s operation by now, but regrettably the regulations have yet to be published. I am sure, however, given the shameful history that precedes this Bill, that Members will agree it is vital that the scheme is seen to be run in a transparent and wholly independent manner. In the House of Lords, Lord Mackenzie asked for more information about the oversight committee, and I have seen the letter that Lord Freud wrote to peers on 4 September on that matter. That offers some reassurance,
	but we would like to see provision for the oversight committee included in the Bill. That is of particular concern because, as I understand, the insurance industry could—and intends to—bid to run the scheme. I confess that I am not entirely comfortable with that notion, but if ultimately the industry is selected to manage the scheme, the role and make-up of the oversight committee becomes all the more important.

Huw Irranca-Davies: May I suggest to my hon. Friend and the Minister that a precedent that could be considered is the miners compensation scheme for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease? That had clear oversight, including democratic engagement both at UK level and also in the regions, which gave the surety that every last penny piece was paid out to the people who deserved it.

Kate Green: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that advice, and he is right to draw attention to the importance for local communities of a scheme that is transparent, credible, and which they are able to scrutinise and interrogate.
	I expect that other issues will arise during our deliberations on the Bill, for example in relation to medical research, where I welcome the commitments made by the Government in the House of Lords, and on the differential between the levels of award made before a sufferer’s death and the level that can be obtained afterwards by his or her dependants. Frankly, that difference has little to commend it for a condition where death is the certain outcome. I recognise that the situation arises not from this Bill but from existing fatal accidents legislation, but I hope there may be scope for a more generous and flexible approach to mesothelioma.
	There remain many complex and important issues to explore, and while we share the Government’s ambition to get the scheme in place and payments flowing, it would be a dereliction of our duty as parliamentarians if we did not scrutinise the full detail of the scheme and do all we can to maximise its generosity for sufferers. Victims have waited long for justice in the face of what can only be described as a hitherto intransigent industry. Now it is time to right a long-standing wrong, and give some small peace of mind to victims and their families in the midst of the most terrible suffering.
	Let me conclude with the words of my constituent, Mrs Elaine Haskins, who first drew my attention to the terrible injustice and cruelty that victims have long lived with. Her husband died of mesothelioma in 2005—a death she describes as
	“very stressful and painful. Two of the insurance companies were not traceable and the others did everything possible to get out of paying a penny. The sad thing was my husband died before he could see justice for his suffering and death.”
	For too long we have let down too many victims of this cruel and terrible disease. Let us resolve today that we will right that wrong, and at last give justice to those victims.

Tracey Crouch: It is a pleasure to speak on this issue, on which I have a great deal of knowledge from working in the insurance industry for five years before I became a Member of Parliament
	and from representing a constituency with very high levels of mesothelioma. Britain has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world and sadly that rate is rising. In the past five years, the south-east of England has had the highest rates of deaths from mesothelioma compared with anywhere else in the UK. Medway, with its heavy industry and dockyard history, is a particular hot spot.
	Mesothelioma is a horrific disease that is contracted exclusively by exposure to asbestos. Those who are diagnosed are often dead within a year. For many years, lawyers and insurers have taken their time to settle claims through civil procedures, leaving great financial uncertainty for sufferers and their families. A great deal has been done to speed up civil claims for victims and tribute ought to be paid to the work of Senior Master Whitaker for making that happen. However, there remains a small yet significant group of people who contracted mesothelioma but could not be compensated either because of poor record keeping by their employer or their employer’s insurer, or because neither existed any more.
	The Bill will help to rectify that and is therefore welcome, but it still contains shortcomings that, if Ministers, insurers and lawyers were open-minded, could be rectified at little extra cost to them. Before going into detail, I congratulate Lord Freud on his sterling efforts to introduce the Bill. From my own experience of working in the insurance industry and alongside lawyers, I know that the negotiations would have been very difficult. He deserved the praise he received from peers on both sides of the House as the Bill progressed through the other place, but it still lacks fair compensation for victims of this dreadful disease.
	In my preliminary discussions with interested parties, there was consensus on one point: the Bill will give sufferers something. That is true and something might be better than nothing, but the Bill puts the something squarely in the pockets of the insurers and lawyers, and not as much as there should be in the hands of the victim. The victim is the one who turned up to work and was exposed to asbestos. The victim is the one who happened to work for a company that kept shoddy records. The victim is the one who will die through no fault of his own. The Bill has room for improvement, based on further compromise.
	Their lordships debated the Bill on a set of assumptions that have been revised since it has progressed to this place. The goalposts have moved. It is a shame that what should be a simple piece of legislation has become so mired in suspicion and confusion regarding what is and is not included in the levy. When the Bill was discussed in the Lords, Lord Freud made it clear that the levy could not be more than 3% gross written premium. That was to ensure that insurers financing the scheme would not incur additional costs that would be passed on to their existing customers. At that point, the levy agreed with the insurance industry was 75% and equated to, as illustrated in the Department for Work and Pensions’ own analysis in support of the Bill, 2.79% GWP in the first four years of the scheme and 2.27% GWP in the first 10 years of the scheme.
	Since the debate in the Lords, the assumptions relating to legal costs have changed. Their lordships debated a fixed legal fee of £2,000, but we are now debating a fee of £7,000. In truth, there is total confusion about who will pay the fee. As the Association of British Insurers understands it, it will be paid by claimants out of their compensation which the Government will uplift accordingly.
	Not only is it unclear what precisely the fee is for, but what the other 25% is paying to administer. It would be helpful if the Government clarified who pays the legal fees. Is it the claimants out of their compensation or the insurance companies out of the administration fee? If it is the claimants, we need to be absolutely clear that when they are awarded £57,000 of compensation, £7,000 of legal fees will have to be deducted from that award.
	Lawyers, insurers and the Government are, unsurprisingly, at loggerheads on the fixed fee, presumably because if it is acceptable for this scheme, why could it not be applied to civil claims? Where would it fit into the LASPO review that the Ministry of Justice is expected to complete and report on next year? At the heart of the Bill is supposed to be the fact that the victim is coming into the scheme at last resort. A lot of what is required will have already been done, so lawyers in a civil claim might not be as necessary as they would be in this scheme. Senior Master Whitaker has helped a great deal and the Department is clear that in some circumstances a medical report would be enough. The underlying point, however, is that because of the revised estimates, about which I remain sceptical, there is no room to raise the compensation limit from 75% to 80%—a much fairer level of financial recompense for victims of the disease. In his introduction, the Minister said that 75% is not the important figure and that the 3% levy is. With the greatest respect to the Minister, it is the level of compensation that is important to the victim, not what the level of GWP is to the insurance industry.

Mark Reckless: My hon. Friend mentioned that Medway is a hot spot for the disease. There have been 42 deaths in my constituency in the past five years—a greater number even than in her constituency, and about three times the national average. She mentioned the 3% and 75% figures. Is it not the case that the changes to which she referred will affect the sums relating to the 3% cap? If that is so, will it not be open to Ministers to show some compromise or movement in the direction that she is so ably arguing for?

Tracey Crouch: My hon. Friend is right that our constituencies are particularly affected and I am delighted to see him in his place to debate this important issue. He makes an important point. The Government have set a cap of 3% and there is no room for manoeuvre unless they are willing to stand up to the insurance industry and say that there is a firm view on both sides of the House that the 75% they have currently negotiated is not good enough. They need to agree on another figure. I believe that 80% would be appropriate as a good compromise between the 90% being called for by the lawyers—they cite the financial services compensation scheme as a useful comparator—and the 70% the insurers were originally willing to accept. Furthermore, with the previous assumptions under which their lordships debated the Bill, 80% would have been 2.98% GWP over the first four years and 2.42% over 10 years. Now, with the 3% cap, under the new legal costs associated with the scheme, there is no room for manoeuvre. I find that disappointing, unless the Minister is willing to stand up to the insurance industry and discuss this.

David Anderson: The hon. Lady is making a compelling case. Does she agree that, as the Minister said, the employers were 100% to blame, that the insurance
	companies have had 100% contributions for many years, that the Government are asking for 100% clawback on DWP benefits and that, sadly, 100% of the victims are dead? Is there not a clear moral case for this House to accept nothing less than 100% compensation for the people who have died?

Tracey Crouch: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I was persuaded by the 100% argument, but having read the House of Lords debate, I now think that 100% would not be right. There is room for compromise on the percentage and we need to ensure that we put the victim at the heart of the compensation scheme—not the insurers and lawyers who may ultimately benefit from it.
	I am also concerned about the lack of clarity on assumptions relating to the age of people diagnosed with mesothelioma. Some think that those accessing the scheme will be younger than the current age group of claimants going through civil schemes, whereas the Department has assumed that there will be an older age group. I tend to believe that, as employers’ liability insurance has been compulsory since 1972, and given this disease’s latency, those unlikely to be able to trace their insurer, making them eligible for this scheme, would surely be older and the younger workers would be fewer. Again, there is room for negotiation with the insurance industry over the compensation levy.
	I understand that the industry is worried about a cohort of younger people who might access the scheme because of exposure in schools and other areas with a less obvious asbestos risk. I am afraid that that is bunkum, because not only would schools have some form of liability insurance, but it would be possible to access compensation via civil procedures. For me, the current 25% running cost of the scheme is far too high, and I genuinely think that this is a poor outcome for the sufferer and a good outcome for the industry, which, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, has behaved poorly over many decades in this area.

Michael Penning: I am conscious that during the course of the debate I may be able to alleviate some concerns across the House about how the scheme is proceeding. Earlier in her comments, my hon. Friend asked whether the legal fees would be in addition or inclusive. They are clearly in addition to any payments that the person receives from the scheme.

Tracey Crouch: We will have an interesting discussion about that in Committee. The representations I have received are contrary to what the Minister says, suggesting that the fees would still come from the claimant, albeit that the Government will uplift the amount of compensation payable in the first place. A victim might get £57,000, for example, but would then have to pay the £7,000 fee out of it—unless the legal fee comes in lower than that, in which case they get to keep the difference.

Michael Penning: Let me clarify once and for all that the legal fee of £7,000 is outside the payment. If people do not spend £7,000, they keep the difference. It is outside, not part of, the compensation.

Tracey Crouch: As I say, we will have an interesting debate in Committee. Is the Minister saying that the insurance industry will pick up the legal fee? Where is
	this magic legal fee coming from? Who is paying for it? If it is not the claimant, it must surely be in the 25% administration costs. Officials have said that it is not within those costs, so we are going to have an interesting debate about where this £7,000 is coming from and, indeed, what it actually equates to.

Stephen Phillips: The Bill went through the other place on the basis that the legal fees would be £2,000, yet we are now told that they are £7,000. The Minister needs to respond to my hon. Friend’s earlier point that one could move to an 80% level of compensation and accommodate it if the legal fees were indeed £2,000 within the 80% of gross written premium. One could not do it otherwise. It could not be accommodated if the legal fees were £7,000. There is room for manoeuvre if the assumption on which the other place proceeded—namely that the legal fees would be £2,000—is correct, but the Minister needs to be clear in the concluding speech about where this £7,000 figure has come from.

Tracey Crouch: I am grateful for my hon. and learned Friend’s intervention. The irony is that, when the Bill first started in the House of Lords, the figure of £7,000 was debated, but the assumption was subsequently revised down to £2,000 and then back up to £7,000. Under the original £7,000 assumption, however, the DWP calculations were exactly the same as they were when £2,000 was being discussed. Unfortunately, it is completely unclear to anyone who has paid any attention to this Bill precisely who is paying for this, what it includes and how the victim can still be put at the heart of it all.
	On one particular point, I pay tribute to the insurance industry. It improved over the years in its financing of research into mesothelioma. This began when I was working at Aviva—I am not talking all the credit for it, but it did—as an attempt to stop the last Government from following the lead of Scotland and legislating too harshly on other asbestos diseases such as pleural plaques. As it happens, I supported the last Government’s resistance to following Scotland and was pleased that the top four insurers contributed to research funding into mesothelioma instead. That said, the funding runs out next year, and there has currently been no voluntary commitment—not just from the top four, but from all EL insurers—to contribute further money into research. I think that is a dreadful shame, which will have a major impact on future treatments to alleviate suffering at a time when we expect meso-diagnosis to spike. I share the views of the British Lung Foundation—supported, I believe, by the Association of British Insurers—about building the continuation of funding directly into the Bill. It is sad that a £4 billion EL industry cannot make a voluntary offering, spread equally across all insurers. If that is so, we parliamentarians now have a statutory opportunity to force them to do so.

David Anderson: The hon. Lady is generous in giving way. Is she aware that when the pleural plaques legislation went through the other place and the Law Lords decided that it would no longer be compensated, KPMG estimated that the insurance companies had a £1.4 billion windfall, so surely a little bit of that could go into the research that she is talking about?

Tracey Crouch: I do, indeed, remember that. I remember having long conversations about pleural plaques with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a long-time campaigner on the issue. As it happens, I disagreed with the idea of compensating pleural plaques. Everybody involved with this Bill well knows that I am passionate about mesothelioma—a disease from which people will die, and quickly—but I have never thought of extending the provisions to other diseases. I supported what the industry did on pleural plaques, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point.
	Let me quickly turn to the issue of benefit recovery. While I agree that this scheme should follow civil procedures and recover benefits from those who have received payments until their compensation has been paid, I think it incredibly unfair that a claimant who is getting the equivalent of 75% compensation to that from a civil claim must repay 100% of his benefits. To return to the main point of the Bill, the claimant is accessing the scheme because of poor practices by employers and insurers after having been negligently exposed to asbestos. I feel that the victim is the one who will lose out here, so I hope we get an opportunity to look carefully at the recovery issue in Committee.
	Finally, let me briefly mention secondary exposure. I understand why diagnosis of mesothelioma caused by secondary exposure from asbestos is excluded from this Bill, but this is an area that I genuinely hope the Department is looking at pursuing. The numbers are small, but I would hazard a pretty good guess that most victims of secondary exposure will be women, who are sufferers of this dreadful cancer purely because they did their wifely duty and washed their husband’s overalls. These women deserve to be compensated, too. They receive payment under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, so it is an accepted cause of suffering, but a proper compensation scheme should be considered for the future.
	While I worked in the industry, I campaigned hard for better, faster justice for those who would die from mesothelioma. I may have been an irritant in the industry, but I was passionate that, after decades of poor behaviour, something had to change. Improvements were made and I was proud to be a part of those small, but important developments. However, in the middle of a constant stand-off between insurers and lawyers remains a person who will die a most horrible death, and at present this Bill, while welcome in principle, still puts too much in the pockets of other interested parties. I hope that Ministers both in this place and the other place will remain open-minded and listen to the concerns of colleagues on both sides and ultimately be willing to go back to the insurers and lawyers and fight just a little harder for the victims of mesothelioma. To my mind, it is the very least that they deserve.

Stephen Hepburn: Let me first pay tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for the genuine interest and compassion she has shown on this subject for a number of years. I am sure that, at the end of the day, we will get the outcome that we are all looking for.
	Last Friday, I sadly attended the funeral of a great and old friend, Terry Smith, a local lad from Hebburn, a town in my constituency. He was a local activist,
	secretary of the local social club, the Iona club, of which I am a member, too. He was a member of the local church, St Aloysius. He was very active in the Society of St Vincent de Paul, and visited the sick. He was a long-term member of the Labour party, and would go out and distribute leaflets whenever he was needed. I am sure that we all know men of his kind—men who do a lot of work but who are unsung heroes, and who never ask for anything in return. Terry left school and went to work in the shipyards, but after a while he changed his career. He went to college, and then managed to get a job teaching. He taught for 28 years, until he retired.
	Two years ago, Terry went to the doctor. After being given a medical, he was told that he had mesothelioma and had three months to live, or, if he had treatment and if he was lucky, he would make it to a year. However, because of his determination, his obvious faith and his medical treatment, he got through two years. It was very sad to be at his funeral last Friday: it was very sad for his friends, and, more important, it was very sad for his family.
	Terry has now become part of a statistic. Every week, three people in the north-east die of mesothelioma. What most of those people have in common is that they are working-class, and were employed by a negligent employer who exposed them to the poisons of asbestos.
	I welcome the scheme, and I think that the Minister has done a great job, because it has been kicking around in the long grass for long enough. It will impose a levy on the insurance industry, which will compensate victims who cannot trace an employer for whom they may have worked many decades ago and who may have gone bust since then, and cannot trace the employer’s insurance company either. The regional media welcome the scheme because they see it as an end to an injustice that we have witnessed for a long time, and, as I have said, I welcome it because it is an improvement on the status quo. However, the Bill falls far short of what the last Labour Government intended.

Kevan Jones: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said about the regional media, but did he feel as concerned as I did about a headline in the Sunderland Echowhich referred to a £300 million bonanza for asbestos victims? In fact, many of his constituents and mine will not be covered by the Bill, and will be short-changed.

Stephen Hepburn: I think that many issues of that kind will be exposed as the Bill proceeds through its stages. The media gave the scheme a warm welcome because they did not know the details and the nitty-gritty.
	The Bill falls short of what we intended when we issued our consultation document. It falls short in regard to the cut-off time—in its present form, it will deny compensation to thousands of mesothelioma victims and save the insurance companies millions—and it falls short in regard to the payments, which will be 75% of the average payment made following a civil claim. I think that the proportion should be 100%, and that insurance companies should be fined a further 25% for ignoring their responsibilities over the years. The money could then be used to establish some proper research on a cure for mesothelioma.
	Why has the Bill been diluted, and why was it kicked into the long grass? Why has this taken so long? The answer is, quite simply, that the insurance companies’
	fingerprints are all over the Bill. That shows the unhealthy relationship that the Tory party has with the insurance industry, which has pumped millions into the party’s coffers over the years. It also shows the value that the Government place on working people, especially those in the north-east. I wonder what would have happened if those people had been professionals in the south-east of England. I wonder what would have happened if, for example, judges had all of a sudden developed an occupational cancer as a result of inhaling hairs from their wigs. We know exactly what would have happened. Those would not have been working-class people breathing in asbestos fibres, and the Tories would have looked after their own people.

Mark Reckless: I do not make this point from a partisan perspective, but the hon. Gentleman said that the scheme was not as generous as the one that the previous Government had planned. Is there something about the disease, about the insurance industry or about politics in this country that explains why it has taken so long for us to reach this stage?

Stephen Hepburn: This came about because of the Labour party’s links with the trade unions, which brought the issue to our attention. Labour Members in the last Parliament—many of whom are sitting here now—had a number of meetings with the then Prime Minister and with justice Ministers. The Bill has been a long time coming. It could have been here two years ago, but because the insurance industry was crawling around and because the Government wanted to appease it, it was kicked into the long grass. Eventually, however, the Minister—and all credit to him—took over the brief and, very recently, enabled us to make progress.

Hywel Williams: There is a long history of delayed compensation for such diseases. In the early 1960s, a campaign for compensation for slate workers began in Wales. It eventually led to the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, but for 20 years or so, nothing at all happened.

Stephen Hepburn: Indeed.
	Let me end by saying that the Bill can be improved. There is time. However, if it is to be improved, the Government must stand up to the employers who have literally got away with murder, and they must stand up to the insurance companies which have literally robbed dead people of £1 billion. They must stand up for what is right. We are convinced that we are on the right side, and we want to know whether the Government will be on the right side. If they do not get on to the right side, they will be seen for what they are. They will be seen to be on the side of the privileged, the powerful and the wealthy, and, ultimately, to be letting cancer sufferers down.

Robert Buckland: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who spoke with understandable passion. All of us who know something about industrial life in this country are aware that for too long we were literally in a state of ignorance. I think of industrial deafness, which affected members of my family, and of other respiratory diseases. In particular, I think of mesothelioma, and of the date of knowledge in law, which is deemed to
	be 1969. It is assumed for the purposes of liability that, until that date, employers, businesses and industries throughout the country—and the people who worked in those businesses, delivering productivity and profit for year after year—were labouring in a state of ignorance. That is a tragedy when we consider the individual stories of the workers and what they went through.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point about the date of knowledge, but, as he knows, mesothelioma was originally identified in the Meriwether report of 1931. After the second world war, the Government wrote to the British shipowners’ confederation drawing attention to the dangers of asbestos. For all those years the fact that it is a danger to health was denied, although that was known to be the case.

Robert Buckland: I was coming to that point. Although for the purposes of liability knowledge of the dangers is defined as having started in 1969, we know that the debate had been going on for many years before that. It is a tragedy that the decision was not made for a generation. Thousands of workers, many of whom are no longer with us, were working in dangerous conditions.
	I represent Swindon, a railway town which had the Great Western Railway at its heart, and had a railway works until 1986, and I have heard stories from many former railway workers who worked in and around asbestos every day of their working lives. Asbestos was being transported along the railway system, but it was also being used to line the boilers and pipes, and to insulate the heat generators which are an integral part of a locomotive. More than that, however, asbestos was being used to line all the carriages built at the Swindon works, and asbestos was used in sprays that were applied to surfaces within and without those carriages. It was very much part of the essence of working life in Swindon. For very many people whom I know exposure to asbestos has been a reality, and that means that many people are still carrying a latent disease—a latent disease that can manifest itself as late as 40 or even 50 years after exposure.
	I am going to single out one person, not because he would have regarded himself as an exceptional man, but because he rose to become the mayor of our town and because he died this year from mesothelioma. Rex Barnett worked for British Rail from 1953 to 1961. It was while he was there that he was exposed to asbestos and went on to develop what was for many years a latent disease. He was diagnosed with pleural plaques back in the mid ’90s and then was one of the unfortunate people who went on to develop mesothelioma right at the end of his mayoral year in 2011. Rex battled on. He was an indefatigable character who in his mayoral year raised over £60,000 for local charities, an exceptional feat in itself. He battled on for another two years, but finally, sadly and tragically, succumbed this year. In his memory and the memory of thousands of other people who worked alongside him, this measure is a welcome one.
	I pause now for a moment to think about the memorial garden we have in Queen’s park in Swindon to the victims of mesothelioma, which is marked by a very simple memorial, and which gives members of my community an opportunity to contemplate and consider the sacrifice—
	the unwitting sacrifice—that was made by those who were exposed for all that time to lethal amounts of asbestos.
	In my early legal career I was trained in personal injury work, which included industrial compensation, and therefore have some, albeit limited, experience of dealing with claims relating to conditions such as mesothelioma. I think that perhaps we are in danger of oversimplifying the position when talking, perfectly naturally, about the need for a swift resolution to the claims made by victims of this disease and their families. There is a danger that seeking to resolve claims before death could lead to a significant under-settlement of claims, which would deprive dependants of the victims of a substantial proportion of the damages they could recover in a posthumous claim.
	I think it is right to talk very briefly in this Second Reading debate about the wider position and principles, while recognising the fact that this Bill will deal with a relatively small cohort of people for whom traceability of employer or insurer has not been possible. The following important point has been raised with me by claimants’ solicitors, some of whom have years of experience in practice in Swindon. The regime that applies to posthumous claims for damages is still dramatically different in England and Wales from that which applies to those made during the lifetime of the claimant. For example, bereavement damages are not payable during the lifetime of claimants, claimants cannot recover for future funeral expenses during their lifetime, and living claimants cannot recover damages for services provided to dependants after death; that is recoverable only as a services dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is clear that under that Act income dependency claims will usually be significantly more for dependants than a lost years claim made under common law for a living claimant. It is clear that claims that are brought by widows after death will be about 20%—a fifth—more valuable than equivalent claims made during life. So the dilemma for mesothelioma sufferers going through all the pain and struggle they have to endure is: do they resolve their claims during their lifetime for what will be a lesser sum, or do they die with a claim unresolved?
	It is interesting to note that the Scots have legislated to bring the rights of relatives before and after death into some alignment. That is one of way of dealing with this, but there are alternatives that could, and do, deliver a practical solution.

Bob Stewart: I probably am thick, but will my hon. Friend explain why there is a difference between claiming before death and after death, because I have not quite understood that?

Robert Buckland: I am certainly not going to insult my hon. Friend, but what I will say is that payments after death are governed by the 1976 Act and payments before death fall under common law, so different rules and regimes apply. As I have said, in Scotland there has been some move to try to align certain aspects—but not by any means all aspects—of the rights of dependants, relating to mesothelioma in particular.
	There are practical alternatives, and in her excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a point that deserves re-emphasis. The work of the senior master of the
	Queen’s bench division, master Whitaker, should be singled out for particular praise because he and his colleagues have developed specialist lists that, in effect, create a fast-track procedure for the efficient resolution of liability issues. The fast-track procedure allows for summary judgment to be passed where sufficient evidence has been demonstrated by claimants about exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and where defendants then have to show cause—reversing the burden, as it were—on evidence why that liability should not be proved. With the resolution of liability, interim payments can be made to claimants and their families to meet the claimants’ needs during life, but that interim payment does not bring resolution or quantum to a close. That can be achieved by a stay of the claim until after death, to allow the full quantum—the final value—of that claim to be properly assessed.
	It is important that we make these points because if we are truly to address the needs of victims and their families, we have to understand what they need, rather than just make glib assumptions about brevity and the need to tie things up before the tragic event of the death of a victim.
	We know that over the next 30 years mesothelioma will claim about 60,000 lives, and that means about 2,500 people will be dying every year from this aggressive cancer. This particular scheme deals with last-resort claims where there is no other alternative. Already we have seen welcome changes by the Government in the other place, by conceding the 70% levy and raising it to 75%, on figures that at the time in question still represented under 3% of the gross written premium for employer liability insurance. I know that these figures have been updated, but when this Bill reaches Committee more particularity must be given as to the basis for those updated figures, because it is crucial if we are to have a meaningful continuing negotiation with the insurance industry—which I think we should—that we know precisely what we are dealing with.
	I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit himself and the Government to particular figures today, but I urge him—and I know he will listen—to keep those figures open and to look to see if we can get a greater proportion, and whether we can achieve 80% as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested. The more we get, the more justice we will deliver for the victims and their families.

Tracey Crouch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurance industry is unlikely to walk away from this scheme because of a very small uplift to 80%, given that it already has an incredibly bad reputation, thanks to the way it has dealt with mesothelioma victims? The notion that, all of a sudden, the entire scheme is going to fall apart because of a small, continuous uplift to 80%, and that the insurance industry is just going to walk away, is absolute nonsense.

Robert Buckland: I agree with my hon. Friend. I do not believe that the industry, which has rightly been criticised for lack of action and lack of resolution, would dare risk further opprobrium by appearing to be even more unreasonable at the end of what has already been a lengthy—some would say over-prolonged—negotiation process.
	My hon. Friend made an interesting point about the industry’s argument regarding the likely age of claimants. Her point has real merit and force, because as she rightly says, given the changes in the law—the Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969 and the introduction of compulsory employers’ liability some 41 years ago—the issue of traceability of insurers surely belongs to a period before the introduction of such legislation. That must mean that the cohort of claimants who would be eligible under this scheme will be older, rather than younger. I fail to see any clear basis for the assertion that we will be dealing with a younger group of claimants. It is important that we as legislators, both here and in Committee, seek to challenge and probe at every stage glib assertions made on behalf of an industry that, although it is now coming to the table, should have done so some years ago.
	I welcome the Bill and all measures that create a degree of justice for those who, as a result of unfortunate accident, are unable to trace employers or insurers. But at the very least, when we make such legislation, it is our duty to ensure that we drive the best possible deal for our constituents and that they get in fullest possible measure the justice they so clearly deserve.

Paul Goggins: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has once more shown his expert understanding and knowledge of this issue. I also compliment the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has again shown her utter determination to ensure that the right thing is done for those who have suffered so terribly from mesothelioma and for their families. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a redoubtable campaigner on this issue for many years, on all the work he has done.
	Every July on action mesothelioma day, in Lincoln square, Manchester, the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group, ably co-ordinated for many years by Tony Whitston, brings together Members of Parliament, other community leaders and the families and loved ones of those who have died as a result of mesothelioma. It is a profoundly moving occasion, and I see in the House hon. Friends who have attended this event in previous years. Doves are released into the sky as a symbol of peace and reconciliation for those families who have faced so much difficulty, and the message goes out that there is still a need for justice for those who have suffered so much.
	One of the most profoundly moving things is that many of the women there hold up photographs of their husbands and loved ones, who worked hard in heavy industry or as electricians or joiners, and who lost their lives to mesothelioma because an employer—an irresponsible, negligent employer—did not remove the risk, did not alert them to the risk they faced. I think of people such as Mr Fryers, a constituent of mine, whose voice is included in the excellent Asbestos Victims Support Group’s “Forum UK” briefing. He says:
	“I never thought I would be exposed to asbestos diseases and suffer mesothelioma. During my apprenticeship from the age of fourteen as these diseases were never talked about you just did the job given to you. No tradesman knew much about asbestos due to the neglect of the employers who exposed them to it.”
	At the event in Manchester—I am sure they take place throughout the United Kingdom—we have a particular focus on the 6,000 innocent mesothelioma sufferers who were unable to find a former employer or insurance company before they died: who were unable, in other words, to get any form of redress or compensation for the illness and eventual death they suffered. The Bill enables us to focus on that group and on those who still struggle to find an employer or an insurance company.
	I welcome the Bill, which is a huge and important step forward. It will bring a measure of justice to those who have been unable to trace employers or insurance companies. However, my message to the Minister—one that is coming loud and clear from all parts of the House this evening—is that if we are going to enact this Bill, we should do it properly and gain the maximum possible justice for those who have been affected.
	Let us remember that the insurance companies start well ahead on this issue. The estimated value of payments that ought to have been made but never were to those who have suffered and died is at least £800 million. We should also add to that the premiums the insurance companies have collected but have never had to pay out on. I encourage them to participate in the development of this scheme; but we should remember that they start ahead, not behind. Throughout the debate on the Bill through its various legislative stages, we should also remember that the voice and experience of those most affected—the loved ones, the families—must be heard. Over many, many years, they have felt ignored and betrayed, and we have to emerge at the end of this process with something that they feel offers them a measure of justice.
	I want to make four brief points, the first of which concerns the level of compensation, which everybody has spoken about this evening. Seventy-five per cent. may be better than 70%, but it is not good enough, and we simply have to do better. Here, there are technical arguments, some of which have already been aired, but in this regard I rely for my view on the view of Parliament. That view was clearly demonstrated during the debate on what became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which brought about changes to the conditional fee agreement. It was very clear in the debates in this House and the other place that to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay more than 25% of their compensation to lawyers was completely unacceptable. That argument was had here and in the Lords, which passed an amendment to prevent the new conditional fee agreements from applying to mesothelioma claims. Members may recall that we entered a period of ping-pong, and eventually there was a compromise and section 48 of the Act was inserted.
	The will of Parliament was very clear on those occasions, and my argument is that if it was wrong to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay 25% of their fee to lawyers, why is it fair to expect them to pay 25% of the fee that they should have to the insurance companies? That is the practical effect of having a cap at 75%. My starting point is 100%. Other figures have been mentioned—90%, 80%—but the message to the Minister is that the figure has to be substantially higher than 75%. We do not want political game-playing here; there has to be a sensible, proper, grown-up discussion with
	the industry, Ministers and Members of this House to make sure that we get the best level of compensation that is available. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was right to suggest that the level of compensation that is agreed on, whatever it might be, should be the level at which benefits are repaid. It would be grossly unfair to set a compensation level of less than 100% and then to expect claimants to repay 100% of their benefits. That would be quite wrong.
	My second point relates to the start date from which people should be paid compensation. I make no criticism of Lord Freud. He made his statement to the House of Lords in July 2012, in the last days before the summer recess. If he had not cared about the issue, he could have left it until October when the House returned, but he wanted to make the statement in July because he does care. The start date should be set further back, however—at least to February 2010—and the reason for that is clear. When the Labour Government published the consultation document, it became clear to the industry that things were going to change and that a compensation scheme funded by the industry would be put in place. From that moment on, the industry has had every opportunity to make the necessary arrangements.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the date needs to be put back. Does he agree with the point made by the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) that, because the date of knowledge is 1969 and most of the claimants are likely to be elderly, there is a reasonable case for putting the start date back at least to 1969 because the number of cases involved will be quite small?

Paul Goggins: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these issues and he makes an important point. I am saying that the date should be put back to at least February 2010, and there are arguments for going back further. I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine those arguments in Committee.

Michael Penning: On the point raised in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the dependants of those who have been affected by this terrible illness will be comp—I nearly used the word “compensated”; we are not supposed to use it. Payments will go to them. It is not the case that no payment will be made just because someone has sadly died. The dependants will get payments as well, and that has to be taken into account. I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but that has to be taken into consideration.

Paul Goggins: I am happy to be the conduit for a conversation between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible discussion about this in Committee. Whatever the start date is, it should predate July 2012.
	My third point relates to section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to which I referred earlier. Last week, I received a copy of a letter sent by Lord McNally to Lord Alton of Liverpool. One or two other Members who took part in the debates during the passage of the LASPO Act also received a copy. Section 48 prevents sections 44 and 46 from coming into force in relation to mesothelioma
	claimants. That means that the new conditional fee agreements cannot operate in relation to mesothelioma claims.
	Ministers keep making the point that the review that has to be carried out under the LASPO Act has somehow to be dovetailed with the arrangements in this Bill. In the letter, Lord McNally says:
	“I can absolutely guarantee that we will work in a synchronised way with the DWP”.
	However, there is no relationship between the review set out in the LASPO Act and the provisions of this Bill. As I have made clear, the provisions in the Act cover civil claims and the arrangements for conditional fee agreements. They will ensure that claimants have to pay back 25% of their success fee to the lawyer who represented them. There have been arguments about that, and the Government clearly have their point of view, but Parliament has expressed the view that that provision should not operate in relation to mesothelioma claimants.
	The Bill, on the other hand, deals with a fund of last resort for people who cannot find their former employer or insurance company, and who have no one against whom to make a civil claim. The two issues are therefore completely separate, and I ask the Minister please to clarify that when he responds to the debate. If there is to be a decision in relation to section 48 of the Act, let us have that debate and make that decision, but let us not confuse that issue with the provisions of the Bill that we are debating today.
	My final point relates to research, which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford also mentioned. It is shameful that we spend so little on researching the causes and treatment of mesothelioma. It is a disease that will kill 2,400 people this year, and in the region of 60,000 people over the next 30 years, and we should be devoting much more to research. I applaud the initiative that a small number of insurance companies took to set up the research fund that is being managed by the British Lung Foundation. Some good, promising work has been done as a result of that, and Lord Alton and his colleagues in the House of Lords wanted to make that arrangement more sustainable, better funded and more reliable in the long term so that we could get some proper research done and some good outcomes. Indeed, Lord Alton pressed an amendment to that effect, but it was narrowly defeated. However, that does not remove the argument, or the need for Ministers to do much more in regard to the funding of research.
	I was struck by Lord Freud’s comment in Committee in the other place, when he was asked about his own efforts to improve investment in research, from the Government and from other sources. He said:
	“I have hit a brick wall at every turn.”
	He is a Minister who was trying to get a better outcome for research but clearly found it difficult. Earl Howe also spoke on Report about how he was trying to improve the research programme, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on progress tonight, because the promises were made in July and it is now November. I hope that some progress has been made, but we cannot get away from the fact that the Bill should contain a provision for the long-term funding by the insurance industry of research into the causes and treatment of mesothelioma.
	I welcome the Bill, but it could be and must be improved. The families of those who have suffered and died as a result of this dreadful disease must be better compensated, and we need a scheme that is affordable and in which those people can have confidence.

Sarah Wollaston: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins). He has put forward some compelling arguments.
	I welcome the Bill. Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, and I have seen at first hand the indignity and pain that it has inflicted on many of my former patients. Perhaps it is because I have been there in the room while they have suffered repeatedly having fluid drained from their lungs that my main complaint about the Bill is that it does not go far enough in its scope. It would be a terrible shame if we were to pass it without taking the opportunity to act on this important area of prevention.
	There is no safe lower exposure limit for asbestos, and children are particularly at risk. A child who is exposed to it at the age of five is between two and a half and five times more likely to develop mesothelioma than an adult aged 30. Since 1980, 228 teachers have died in this country as a result of negligent exposure to asbestos. Let us remember that every one of those teachers had 30 children in the classroom with them. Let us also remember that 75% of our schools contain asbestos, and evidence from the Health and Safety Executive shows that about 13,000 out of 23,800 schools were built at the time when asbestos use was at its peak. That asbestos is now crumbling. Every time a drawing pin is stuck into an asbestos board and taken out again, it releases about 6,000 asbestos fibres.
	The trouble is that the argument we take in this country that we should literally cover up asbestos is not good enough. The evidence shows that slamming doors and children kicking kick-boards around the classroom edges can increase the level of asbestos fibres in the air by about 6,000 times. We should go far further than we are doing; that is what happened in the United States. In 1980, the US conducted its first major audit of asbestos and introduced stringent regulations in 1986. As a result, the level of mesothelioma in the US has stabilised since 1999; there are now about 14 deaths per million per year, whereas in 2009 in the UK there were 37.8 deaths per million—and unfortunately, that level continues to rise. I know that the Minister has said he expects it to peak in 2015, but we do not yet know what the future impact of asbestos exposure in schools will be.

Michael Penning: This is a good opportunity for me to address a slight hiccup. The number of mesothelioma victims will peak in 2014—the claims will peak in 2015.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Minister for clarifying the point. The trouble is that the Bill is about compensating people who have been negligently exposed in the course of their work. What will we be saying to future victims who are negligently exposed in the classroom? They will not have an employer; they are being negligently and knowingly exposed by the state, and it is simply not good enough that we take a view that there is nothing we can do.

Ian Lavery: Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a phased, managed removal of all asbestos from schools, rather than relying on management plans, as prevention is always better than cure?

Sarah Wollaston: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think we should be starting with the schools with the highest risk. Since the original decisions were made, when air sampling tests for asbestos were technically difficult, could detail only a single pinpoint in time and were immensely expensive, the technology has moved on significantly. I call on the Minister to examine the new technology that is emerging in air sampling for asbestos, which gives real-time data on exposure and could be widely rolled out in schools—prototypes are available. I ask the Minister to review during the passage of the Bill whether we could bring such new technology into the scope of the Bill.
	I know that the property data survey was designed to be light touch, but it is extraordinary that not only the most expensive aspect of future building programmes in schools—asbestos removal—but the most dangerous aspect have been completely omitted. At the moment, parents have little knowledge of where their children are at risk. I wrote to all the schools in my constituency to ask about their asbestos policies, and one school replied that it had had an asbestos survey carried out a few years ago and that
	“There is very little asbestos in the school, just in a few floor tiles and in the artex”.
	I am sorry, but asbestos in the floor tiles and in the artex is exactly the kind of thing I am most concerned about, because it is raining down on children in our classrooms. As I say, technology is now available that allows us to look in real time for any dangers, rather than spot-check after building work. What happens when 30 children charge round over floor tiles containing asbestos? I urge the Minister to take an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to examine that matter. Without acting to protect children from asbestos now, we will not see a long-term falling off in the incidence of mesothelioma and this terrible disease will affect those children in decades to come.

Hywel Williams: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who speaks knowledgeably and movingly from her own experience, making some extremely telling points.
	I, too, welcome this Bill as a step in the right direction but, as has been said many times, it needs to be strengthened, particularly in respect of the level of compensation. I pay tribute to the work done in the other place on this Bill by Lord Wigley. As I have said, he worked tirelessly for many years to get the Pneumoconiosis etc (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 on to the statute book.
	I have a special constituency reason to be interested in the Bill, because I represent a former slate quarrying area that has benefited from the provisions of the 1979 Act; it provided compensation to slate workers whose former employers had gone out of business and could not therefore be sued. My area also, at one time, had a Ferodo/Turner and Newall factory, which used asbestos for many years from the 1960s onwards. Recently, I have heard dreadful tales from former employees of workers
	in the 1960s having snowball fights with fistfuls of asbestos during tea breaks and at lunch time. I was also told that the factory was a dust trap from one end to the other and that it was rarely cleaned properly. Some hon. Members will know that the factory later morphed into the infamous Friction Dynamics concern, which provoked and then lost the longest-running industrial dispute of recent times. The owners lost and then evaded their responsibilities—it is a lesson to us all—and the wrongly sacked workers still have not received a single penny piece in compensation for wrongful dismissal. Some of those people are also suffering from the effects of asbestos.
	The incidence of mesothelioma in my constituency is much lower than elsewhere; Gwynedd is a rural area, and therein lies the clue. Mesothelioma is less prevalent there, but among the particular group of workers I mention it is as prevalent as elsewhere. The effects on the individual are, of course, as bad as anywhere else, whatever the incidence in the general population. We know that it can take many years for symptoms of this awful disease to be manifest, and people in seemingly unconnected industries and occupations can be sufferers. They include a former constituent of mine who had never worked near an asbestos plant but had worked as a boiler maker on submarines, and someone who had many years before been a sub-contractor removing asbestos from redundant buildings before fully realising the danger to which he was exposed.
	As we have heard, mesothelioma strikes people in later life and, for me, the case for compensation could not be clearer. Many people may have lost out on compensation because of the delay between 2010 and this scheme being announced in 2012. As I said, however, my main concern, and the main concern that has been conveyed to me, is about the level of compensation. Sufferers face 100% of the effects of this dreadful disease, so how can it be right that they are offered a lesser degree of compensation? In the other place, Lord Wigley tabled an amendment that would have brought the level up to 80%. As other hon. Members have noted, Lord Freud said that it was impossible to get the insurers to agree. I made the point in an earlier intervention that the 1979 Act provides for 100% of the compensation available before the courts, and of course recovery of already paid benefits will be at 100%.
	I am glad that progress has been made, but the Bill is narrower in scope than some of us would like. It offers recourse to those suffering from diffuse mesothelioma only—and to eligible dependants—and it is available only to those diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012. The Bill makes provision for a scheme that will make payments to those persons, provided that they have brought no action against an employer or the employer’s liability insurer because they were unable to do so. Surely that date should be at least three years earlier, in line with the three-year limitation period in law.
	I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that conditions excluded from the provisions—presumably because of the difficulty in proving causation—have already been included in an administrative scheme that pays compensation to all asbestos victims at Turner and Newall asbestos factories. If that company can do it, why cannot the Government do it?
	It seems unfair, cruel and inhuman to impose—as insurance industry insiders have suggested—a lower rate to encourage people to persevere in identifying
	insurers so that claims will be brought to the scheme only once all other avenues have been exhausted. People will be experiencing the distressing and incapacitating symptoms at a time when they are likely to be seeking compensation and will often not be in any condition to pursue extensive research, not least because of their very short life expectancy. That is the grim reality.
	Finally, I echo the points made by other hon. Members in respect of the research that is so desperately needed. As has already been said, the UK has the highest rate of mesothelioma in the world, and the small amount of money invested in research compares very badly with the research into other cancers. New funding for research over the past three years has produced good results. I have read about new researchers and new expertise, but long-term funding must be secured for this important research.

Jim Sheridan: The one constant I find from people who suffer from mesothelioma is that it covers all disciplines. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) is right that the disease is mainly concentrated in the industrial towns and cities, we now see incidents of mesothelioma in other disciplines, such as in teaching.
	Before we go into the pros and cons of the Mesothelioma Bill, it might be appropriate to look at the effects of mesothelioma on people. The best description of the disease comes from one of my constituents, who said that it was like having a tree growing inside him. He said the branches spread and eventually choke the sufferer to death. There are people out there who, when they cough, are anxious that they could be suffering from mesothelioma. When that person catches a heavy cold, their families are worried that they have mesothelioma or pleural plaques, which is the start of the disease.
	When I worked in the shipyards in Glasgow, we used to make fun of the asbestos workers, or pipe coverers as we called them. They then became known as laggers and were then upgraded to insulating engineers. We used to mock them and make fun of them, not knowing that we were swallowing the same particles of asbestos that covered everyone who worked in that industry. I warmly welcome the work of asbestos support groups, and none more so than Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which does a tremendous job in helping people cope with that difficult disease.
	There has been much criticism of the insurance companies during this debate, and I am sure that much of it is right, but perhaps I can take colleagues back to some years ago in Scotland. When a person died in Scotland their claim for asbestosis or mesothelioma died with them. The insurance companies used to invite the sufferer to court, because the thought was that if a person was diagnosed with mesothelioma, they did not have long to live. These people decided to cut to the chase and try to get as much money as they could from the insurance companies before they died, so they went to court to get a judgment.
	During the court case, the insurance people had doctors sitting beside them, trying to ascertain how long that person had to live. Then they would find some technical reason to postpone the case, hoping that in the intervening period the person would die and they would not have to pay out. I know that the trade unions
	came in for a lot of criticism, but the Transport and General Workers Union campaigned hard and successfully to get rid of that heinous legislation. It is important that we understand those events. Even today, producers export asbestos to some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. There is no protection whatever on offer. These people are now being subjected to what we were subjected to some 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
	As chair of the all-party group on occupational health and safety, I welcome the Bill. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) knows, the process began under the previous Labour Government, with the consultation in February 2010, and I am pleased that the coalition has at least in part kept the sentiment of those original proposals. Sadly, the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough and the Government are well and truly siding with the insurers, who have profited from the collection of premiums over many decades and who will now continue to be subsidised by people suffering from diseases other than mesothelioma.
	It would be remiss of us not to recognise the excellent work that was done by Michael Clapham, the former Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, who worked extremely hard not just on mesothelioma cases but on all industrial cases. He fought hard to get the compensation that people deserved. That responsibility has now been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is secretary of the all-party group and who does equally important work on these issues.
	In our all-party group, we recognised that there was a real need to address the issue of asbestos-related illnesses as a consequence of working in certain environments. For that reason, we set up the asbestos sub-committee. It is devastating that, even though we have known of the dangers of this chemical, workers have continued to be exposed to it and are only now, decades later, discovering the consequences of their employers’ negligence.
	Almost every week, there are plumbers, trade workers, electricians and joiners who die from this hidden killer. Their work has been the bedrock of our society. They have built the infrastructure that we rely on, and so it is only right that they are compensated for the sacrifices that they have made.
	The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, talked about teachers suffering from mesothelioma. The all-party group produced an excellent booklet, highlighting both the problems and solutions of the disease. She was right that we should deal with the old schools first and then build up the effort to try to get rid of the diseases. We are talking about not just teachers but administrative staff, janitors and even children. I do not want to frighten people, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Education Department has chosen to ignore the information that we have provided.
	About one in eight sufferers cannot trace their employer or insurer to lodge a complaint. That is completely unjust, and it is luck of the draw whether a person’s records have been lost due to the widespread misplacement of them by the insurance industry. Indeed, in bringing forward the Bill, the Government have acknowledged that. It seems strange that they accept the unfairness, to an extent, but will not allow these people to claim the same amount as those who can trace their employer or insurer. Those people who are suffering from mesothelioma
	and other industrial diseases through no fault of their own, and who cannot get access to their records, again through no fault of their own, are being penalised by losing 25% of their damages. Not only that, but through this decision, asbestos victims will absorb 25% of the ongoing cost because insurers lost or destroyed their policy records. That is simply not fair: not only is that money necessary to these people, but it is only right that they should receive it.
	Obviously, we would welcome higher compensation and would raise it to 90%. That is not the full 100%, but I am convinced that the Government would be more than happy to accept that rise as it is still affordable according to their own figures. It still falls within the 3% levy on gross written premiums, which not only the Government but the industry are happy with. The figure would also work as there is a precedent for it in the financial services compensation scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances where compulsory insurance is involved. That compensation level is legal, established and much fairer than the one proposed by the Government.
	Mesothelioma is a dreadful disease, but it is not the only asbestos-related disease and the Government’s choice to focus only on it is another injustice of the Bill. Lord Freud said in the other place that other asbestos-related diseases need to be considered and I, as well as my colleagues, would like to hear the Minister affirm that comment and explain the steps that will be taken to look into those diseases, too. It is frankly offensive that the Bill has neglected all but one group of people who have been exposed to asbestos. That limitation excludes 50% of asbestos victims and adding them would represent just 20% of the cost. I ask the Government what are those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening supposed to do?
	The Government say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma as asbestos is the only known cause, but I would point the Minister towards a successful precedent: the T&N UK asbestos trust and the payment of claims not just for mesothelioma but for other asbestos diseases.
	As the Minister will be aware, Opposition Members feel that the cut-off date for the proposed scheme is another unfairness. The consultation was issued in 2010 and its objective was very clear, as it stated:
	“The Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau…would be a compensation fund of last resort and would ensure that some individuals who are unable to trace…insurance records would receive compensation”.
	That is clear to me and I have no doubt that the insurance companies panicked at that point and began to prepare immediately. They spent thousands of pounds on public affairs officials, which might explain why the Government seem to be on the side of the insurance industry in this case, and those officials will be calculating and planning how to react to each and every policy proposal. They will not have missed this and the companies are well and truly ready.
	The companies argue that if the legislation was based as far back as 2010, that would amount to
	“unlawful interference with insurers’ property rights”,
	but they are happy to put their rights ahead of the far more important right to life and loss of property rights of the victims we are speaking about today. Surely the
	Government cannot accept that; surely even they can see the complete injustice. The date of 25 July 2012 is arbitrary and it would make far more sense to choose February 2010 as a start date for the scheme.
	In yet another example of the Government favouring the industry over our constituents, it is becoming clear that the scheme will be administered by the insurance industry in one way or another. We have seen time and again that industry regulation does not work and it is important that an independent body is established to take charge. A scheme administered and run by the industry would have a clear conflict of interest between assessing the eligibility of applicants and keeping the levy on insurers low. How could we be sure that a fair number of applicants was being considered if the industry was in charge? Lord Freud commented that the Government would explore the options for an independent oversight committee and I would be keen to hear the same assurances today.
	We are concerned that the scheme awards claimants only 75% of civil compensation rates while clawing back 100% of previously awarded benefits and lump-sum payments. It is unclear why the Government will claw back a greater percentage than is being paid, which will mean that the applicant will receive a net sum that is substantially less than 75% of the net sum he would have received in the courts if the insurer could have been traced. It is somewhat immoral that the state is being given a greater right of financial recovery than the victim and it is grossly unjust that victims are being penalised twice. I hope that the Minister will outline exactly how he will think about changing that.
	Finally, let me say a word on research. I do not want to spend too much time on that, as the Bill already needs a lot of work to make it a fair and just solution to a disgraceful situation, but until recently very little was spent on research into mesothelioma in the UK. In the other place, we were promised a joint strategy with the Department of Health on how to encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma and it is clear that more money should be spent on finding a cure for the disease. I hope that the Government have not forgotten those issues.
	As I said earlier, I welcome the Bill. We have worked long and hard to secure it, but it has flaws. I hope that the Government will see that it should be fair and just. Insurance companies can afford the risk, but asbestos victims have already paid with their health. Do not make them pay financially as well.

Eric Joyce: Members on both sides of the House have made excellent speeches and I will not repeat their points, except one. The Minister will be used to hearing about the 75% figure and the timings.
	A close family member of mine died from mesothelioma a few months ago and I got the chance to reflect on it with him over a period of months while he could still speak. It was my brother, Ray, who talked a lot at the best of times, although people obviously cannot do that towards the end of this disease. During the course of the disease, I would visit him and we would talk through the scheme. He was lucky, as some Scottish workers are, to have worked on the rigs, so his family was relatively well cared for and prepared for the future.
	One thing we discussed at the time has not yet been mentioned, and although it might perhaps not have an immediate bearing on the legislation, I think that it should. The folk who are primarily affected are the wives of husbands who worked on shipyards, building sites and so on. They are primarily women who have not paid full pension contributions over their lives, so they have relatively low incomes. Some of those who are householders or house owners—the ones whose husbands might have been unlucky when they were still in their late 50s—will not have paid off their mortgages. If they have relatively modest insurance provision outside that, that will affect them for the rest of their lives, as will their modest pension contributions—if, indeed, they have made any.
	Many of those people live in rented or council accommodation and £100,000, which they will not get if their cases are from between 2010 and 2012, would have paid for a wee house, which would have made them substantially better off. These are human beings we are talking about—mainly women, as we know—and that would make a big difference to the rest of their lives. They will be seriously ill affected by the period for which they will not be compensated between February 2010 and July 2012.
	A second point occurred to us as we were chatting earlier this year. The Minister alluded to the fact that insurance companies will negotiate and argue—that is a legitimate point, and I guess that is what government is about to a substantial degree—but the idea that insurance companies were unable to plan for this from 2010 is manifestly ridiculous. They must have offset the risk, because it was clear that such a provision was coming.
	I wonder whether, if the figure were greater than 75%, the insurance industry might say that it would not be able to absorb the cost and that it would pass it on to consumers and so on. I wonder whether in future the industry might give this scheme as an example of a liability where costs are slightly higher because of that 75% figure. We should not hear that, because the industry says that it will absorb the cost, but it behoves all of us to watch to see whether the industry gives the 75% scheme as an example of something that increases people’s premiums, even slightly, in future.
	Another thing that struck me as the disease unfolded was that most people who have mesothelioma are not diagnosed with it at the start, but they pretty much know that they have it, that they have about two years, and that it will be very bad at the end. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in the Chamber, may be aware of this issue: it occurred to me and my brother that doctors may have known that the scheme would be given a start date at some point in, say, the next six or nine months, and so would slightly delay the final “You’ve got mesothelioma” gig—the black spot. My brother was diagnosed officially in the first week of August, a week after the scheme came into play; I do not wish to invalidate his family’s claim. Most sufferers in the very early stages of mesothelioma who Google their symptoms and think about what job they had know what is going to happen to them about two years in advance. If doctors help in modest ways in that respect, administratively, good on them.
	I have two final points. The first is about a moment of black humour. Again, this is on a point that the hon. Member for Totnes talked about. People with public
	budgets will look at the relatively modest risk, as they see it, of people contracting asbestosis as a result of there being small amounts of asbestos still in buildings. From a budgetary point of view, I understand how it happens that people with modest public budgets that are very squeezed will sometimes allow a very small amount of asbestos that is within the limits to remain in place. In the hospital where my brother was treated—very well, I should say—there was a sign that said “Danger—asbestosis”, and that was where the smokers gathered to have a fag. It made me reflect on the nature of risk; it was a darkly humorous moment.
	Several Members have alluded to the fact that the industry may well administer the scheme. I do not have any personal enormous objection to that, but as hon. Members have said, if the industry is to administer the scheme, oversight will be a critical element, certainly from the point of view of public confidence. I am sure that the Government and the industry will pay careful attention to that.

Iain Wright: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who spoke movingly about his brother and talked with knowledge about his constituency. I rise to speak about my constituency, too. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House who have spoken, I think that the Bill is welcome but does not go far enough to help victims and their families in my constituency.
	Far too many of my constituents are severely affected by asbestos-related disease. Thousands of them have died painful deaths as a result of dangers that they were exposed to at work. Families have seen their loved ones die in agony, often while worrying about the financial impact of their death on those whom they left behind, and without seeing proper justice done, or compensation for their illness. Tragically, we know that more deaths as a result of exposure to asbestos in the workplace will come to Hartlepool.
	We in Hartlepool suffer more than our fair share of mesothelioma and asbestos-related deaths because of our industrial legacy. My town was a major centre for heavy manufacturing, which was based around the docks, shipyards and steelworks. Firms such as Richardsons, Westgarth and Co.—Richies—and William Gray and Co. are long gone, but are engrained in the social history of my town, having provided employment for many generations of Hartlepudlians. However, asbestos was regularly used in those environments for lagging and other purposes, and employees were far too often not provided with proper protective clothing or equipment.
	According to the Health and Safety Executive, in the last 30 years, the number of deaths per million people arising from mesothelioma in England has risen from 26.6 to 67.1. I am pleased to see many hon. Friends from the north-east here; our region is the worst-affected in the country, reflecting the legacy of our heavy manufacturing industry. In the same 30-year period, the figures for the north-east rose from 56.1 to 105. Hartlepool is the 16th worst-affected constituency in the entire country.
	However, those are just statistics; we should think about the families, and the tragedy that we have seen. When I do, it brings to mind one of the most tragic cases that I have heard of in my constituency. A woman
	who was brought up in a community of laggers lost her father, then her husband, then her son, and finally her own life, to mesothelioma—all because of exposure to asbestos in the workplace as a result of negligent employers. Far too many of my constituents are suffering from this disease, and to make matters even worse, they are not seeing justice done or getting compensation for their suffering.
	As I say, the Bill is welcome, but it is far from perfect. Amendments were tabled in the other place, but the Government did not listen to the arguments for them. The Minister in charge of the Bill—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—is on the Treasury Bench; he is a decent, honourable man who cares about working people, so I hope that during the Bill’s passage in the House, he will reconsider many of the amendments that were tabled in the other place. Otherwise, the Bill will not help my constituents. There has been very clear consensus in this debate that we need to make changes to the Bill to ensure that all our constituents are provided with proper compensation.
	Clause 2, which sets out the criteria for compensation, is the key part of the Bill. The criteria include the person being first diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma on or after 25 July 2012, and being employed at the time of exposure. Those criteria are not good enough. As hon. Members have said, the arbitrary cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is grossly unfair, and will mean that many of my constituents who should, if there is any sense of decency, be compensated for diseases caught at work will miss out because they were diagnosed before that date. How can that be fair? There is no possible justification or sensible rationale for that. My constituents will be penalised because their symptoms were diagnosed early. How is that fair? At the very least, as hon. Members have said, the Government should make the cut-off date February 2010, which is when the last Government consulted on introducing a scheme. At that point, the intention and direction of travel were clear. People will be let down if the Government continue to have 25 July 2012 as the cut-off date.

David Anderson: I thank my hon. Friend for making a valuable contribution, as usual. The Minister said in his opening remarks that the people to blame were the employers, 100%. Regardless of when somebody was diagnosed, if they were in employment, surely there is a moral duty on the employer. The employer is to blame; their insurer should carry the cost. The employee should be awarded compensation, regardless of when they were diagnosed.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend makes an important and eloquent point. He has been a passionate champion on this issue for many years, and I pay tribute to him. I will come to the Bill’s impact on the insurance industry in a moment—

Kevan Jones: rose—

Iain Wright: —but I will first give way to my fellow north-eastern MP.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I have heard the argument about accepting the February 2010 date, but that, too, is an arbitrary date, and that is why I do not agree with it. A more sensible way forward would be to go back to 1969 and the date of knowledge. The Minister says that families will be included in the scheme, and that there will be a huge bow wave of claims; my experience in this area makes me think that there will not be, but at least that would be a more logical way of deciding on the date.

Iain Wright: Any cut-off date will be arbitrary. We just want compensation for victims in our constituencies. That issue will have to be explored, and I hope it is explored at length in Committee.
	Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that only diffuse mesothelioma is included in the scheme. Workers have contracted a variety of diseases as a result of exposure at work, including pleural plaques and asbestosis. It is not good enough that only one, narrowly defined condition can be included. Again, I hope that the Minister will amend that in Committee.
	My third point was touched on by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I have great concerns about the fact that clause 2 confines the scheme to those employees who were employed at the time of exposure. In Hartlepool I have had at least two cases—I referred to one earlier—in which the wife of a worker developed pleural plaques, then asbestosis and then mesothelioma as a result of washing her husband’s work clothes, which released the fibres and allowed them to enter her lungs. Those women—there are probably many more—suffered and died as a direct result of asbestos exposure caused by an employer. Surely it is only fair and just that they should be included in the scheme. I hope that the Government will accept that secondary exposure is an important part of what the Bill should provide for.
	The third way in which the Bill must be improved relates to the amount of compensation provided. We have heard time and again from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the payments will be only 75% of the value of civil claims. That really is a mean-spirited and petty act from the Government against people facing a terrible, terminal disease. There can be no possible justification for the scheme paying less than 100% compensation. Why should victims in Hartlepool miss out on what could be several thousand pounds in compensation, which could provide a little dignity and comfort in their final days or—let us be frank—provide their families with the money to bury them, just because a deal has been struck with the insurance industry, an industry that might have lost or destroyed the policies for which they took the cash from those employees in the first place? Let us be under no illusions: the insurance industry has got a hell of a good deal out of this Government and out of this Bill.

Steve Rotheram: I am president of the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group. I know from the people I have spoken with—I am sure that the same is true in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that most victims want the recognition that someone is being held accountable for their suffering or that of their loved ones. The
	financial compensation will help them in their last days or alleviate the financial hardship that losing them, perhaps the breadwinner, might bring to their family.

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend makes such an important point. My constituents are victims. They have done nothing wrong. They just tried to do a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. They did not want the trauma and tragedy that exposure to asbestos caused. It is the negligent employers who should be held accountable for that negligence.
	The insurance industry should have a key role to play but—let us be honest—has been let off. It has negotiated a scheme that excludes approximately half of all asbestos victims, it can ignore liability for all claims prior to 25 July 2012, its costs are reduced because the average compensation agreement will mean that individually negotiated and assessed costs will not have to occur, and the fault is laid at the door not of negligent employers, but of victims.
	On top of all that, the insurance industry is planning to reduce average compensation by 25%, compared with civil cases, and the Government are giving insurers £17 million to set up the scheme. Given that employers’ insurance was compulsory from 1972, the insurance industry has already received the premiums from firms and banked the cash for over 40 years. It has had the money, so now it is time for the victims to receive their fair share.
	The insurance industry must have seen the Government coming. The Government have been rolled over by the industry. As a result, my constituents will miss out on justice and compensation at precisely the time in their lives when they need it most. For far too long we have let those people down. My constituents have been let down by a failure to act quickly. The Bill is a step forward, but it does not go far enough for victims of this horrific disease in Hartlepool and elsewhere.

Ian Lavery: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who spoke so passionately about the situation in the north-east. Mesothelioma is a tragedy. It is a global tragedy, but in the UK alone it cuts short the lives of some 2,500 people annually. The disease has a devastating impact on all it touches, both the victims and their loved ones. It is a fatal disease, with life expectancy of between nine and 15 months following diagnosis. It is a horrendous disease, described earlier as being like a tree growing inside the sufferer, with branches reaching out. We cannot begin to understand what that must mean for them. The people of the north-east suffer greatly from the disease, as a result of the region’s history of heavy industry, including shipbuilding, coal mining and steel manufacturing.
	This horrendous disease, as a number of Members have explained today, is a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. It is a long-tail disease, meaning that people exposed to asbestos decades ago are only now discovering the consequence of their employers’ negligence. One of the huge problems with mesothelioma is the latency period. Someone can work in industry, perhaps for many different employers, and be in contact with asbestos either unknowingly, as was generally the case, or knowingly, as was the case in the tales recited by
	hon. Members on both sides of the House about young workers throwing snow balls of asbestos. Whether someone was throwing snow balls of asbestos as a young man or woman or whether they were unaware that they were coming into contact with it, the result is the same: mesothelioma 30, 40 or 50 years later.
	There are individuals who feel absolutely fine and have worked all their lives—this disease mainly hits hard-working people—but then 30 years later they begin to get that feeling, like a tree growing inside them, and start to wonder where it is coming from and what has caused it. They think about their occupation and what could have created the problem, because many people were in and out of different occupations. When someone realises they have a condition, they don’t think, “This must just be mesothelioma,” but when the doctor explains that they are suffering from that disease, that really is the end of their days.
	Mesothelioma is not like many other types of cancer that the NHS has proved tremendously successful in treating. The NHS can identify many different cancers at early stages and survival rates are much higher, but that does not happen with mesothelioma. When the doctor tells someone that they have the disease, they are basically saying in round about terms that their life expectancy has been cut drastically. Several Members mentioned different life expectancy rates, from between nine and 15 months to two years. Let us just say that the maximum is two years, and that is for working hard in industry and being subjected to asbestos unknowingly or knowingly.
	The payments scheme will be funded by the industry through a levy on currently active insurers in the UK employers’ liability market. The scheme is intended as a fund of last resort. Claimants who are unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer can apply to the fund. Successful applicants will receive 75% of the average compensation. That is important to note, and I will touch on that in a few moments.

Andrew McDonald: My hon. Friend touches on the very important issue of the 75% payment. Does he understand the thinking behind saying that someone is going to receive only 75% of the damages they are entitled to, with a 75% loss of their earnings but 100% being recouped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Where is the equity in that proposal?

Ian Lavery: There is no equity; 75% of average compensation is totally unacceptable for the individuals concerned. Huge amounts of finance will be involved, by the way—we are not talking about pennies.
	The Labour party has a history of fighting for those with mesothelioma. I could spend all day and night putting on record my thanks to Members of Parliament, members of the public and organisations such as the GMB and Unite unions that have worked tirelessly to get compensation for those with asbestos-related prescribed diseases. The Labour party’s history in this area is fantastic. In February 2010, we launched the original consultation; in 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme; and in 1979 we introduced the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which has been tremendously successful for many people suffering from, in the main, coal dust-related incidents in the north-east and across the coalfields of the UK.

Steve Rotheram: My hon. Friend mentions the part that the Labour movement has played, but there is also the part played by the insurance industry, which has abrogated responsibility from day one and kicked back at every single push that the unions and the Labour movement have made. Does he see any parallels between large industries such as the insurance industry and construction industry that have failed to take responsibility for things they have done such as blacklisting and, much worse, possibly killing people through their irresponsible behaviour?

Ian Lavery: I have been involved for many years in trying to claim compensation for people in work, whether from insurance companies or employers, and it has always been a difficult challenge because they try to abrogate their responsibility at every opportunity. They try to run away from it and to put as many obstacles in the way of any form of compensation as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that is how they operate.
	Thank goodness we have trade unions that stand up for individuals who are hurt and who suffer from prescribed diseases such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, industry-related diseases and injuries at work. Thank goodness that ordinary people have behind them the security of trade unions, which have the finance at least to try to get the compensation that lots of families should have had.
	I welcome the scheme as a massive move forward, but I hope that we can come together in Committee and iron out a few major problems. I will mention four items of concern, but that is not to say that there are not others: first, the level of the percentage payment; secondly, the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases; thirdly, the cut-off date of 25 July 2012; and, lastly, the claw-back of 100% of DWP benefits when the Bill provides for payment at only 75%—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).
	On the level of payment, why should anybody who will have two years to live, max, be happy with 75% of any compensation? These people are dying.

David Anderson: They are being killed.

Ian Lavery: Yes, they are being killed.
	Why should 75% be acceptable? Someone has said that 80% would be a better figure; of course it would, but it is absolutely vital to have 100% compensation for somebody who has very little lifetime left. Claimants to the scheme have to meet the same standards of evidence and burden of proof that apply in a court action, but those with a successful civil claim will get paid 100%. Why should there be a difference?
	Employers’ liability insurance is one of two compulsory insurances in the UK; the other is motor insurance. Insurers collected premiums in full and invested them for decades. The insurance companies used these finances for generations. They put the money in the bank and paid themselves dividends. People made themselves rich while at the same time stashing away the policies—hiding them, burning them, and getting rid of them. The only people who will suffer as a result are those who are set to die 30 or 40 years later due to the latency period and the activities of the insurance companies, which had the money but decided not to keep it for future generations in case something like this occurred. They paid out
	nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. This could have saved the insurance companies billions of pounds, yet we are debating whether to pay these people and their families three quarters of what they are due.
	Somebody said that the Minister is an honourable man who looked after honest, hard-working people, and I really do not doubt that. I appeal to him by saying that we cannot give people three quarters of what they are due and think we are being fair—that does not square the circle.

Andrew McDonald: I think my hon. Friend shares my puzzlement that we are talking about 75% being awarded to people under this scheme, welcome though it is, because it is better that we compensate people in full. Yet when this Government go to the European Union they go into bat for an 100% uplift in bankers’ bonuses. For goodness’ sake, does that not tell us everything we need to know about the values that are at play?

Ian Lavery: I thank my hon. Friend. I will cover that during the next 30 minutes of my speech.
	The regulatory impact assessment estimates that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add the cost to victims of other asbestos-related diseases, the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry represents a saving to insurers of some £1 billion. On average, the 75% figure means that individuals will lose up to £43,000 in each claim and that victims are absorbing 25% of the ongoing costs due to insurers losing or destroying their policy records.
	Secondly, there is the exclusion of other diseases. Why is this about mesothelioma only? The employers’ liability insurance for which the employers paid premiums covered them for claims arising from all “bodily injury or disease”, not just asbestos-related disease, and certainly not just mesothelioma. By limiting the scheme to mesothelioma, the Bill excludes 50% of all victims. Those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening have been cast aside. Among other industrial prescribed diseases that might be considered—I pick this one out of the air—is baker’s asthma, a disease that is crippling for people who work in the baking industry, whereby they suffer the same conditions although it does not have such drastic problems with regard to latency and shortened life expectancy. There are all sorts of different diseases, including baker’s asthma and other asbestos-related diseases, that should be covered by the Bill. It is a decent Bill, but we do not want a decent Bill: we want a good Bill.
	If the Bill included 50% of asbestos victims, that would represent just 20% of the total cost. It is not acceptable that the scheme is limited to just mesothelioma. The Government’s justification for excluding other diseases is to say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma, because asbestos is its only known cause. However, there is already a successful precedent, namely the Turner and Newall Asbestos Trust, which administers payments of claims for not just mesothelioma, but other asbestos-related diseases. The Bill should be extended to cover all long-tail latent industrial diseases prescribed under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.
	The third issue is the cut-off date, which has been mentioned by many Members. The cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is unbelievable, especially given that the consultation began in February 2010. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the cut-off date should be 1969, which was the date of guilty knowledge.

Kevan Jones: I have checked the date and I think the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was wrong. I think that the actual date was 1965.

Ian Lavery: I wondered why 1969 was mentioned; I think that 1965 would be more appropriate.
	The cut-off date will have a huge impact on lots of people. Geoffrey Leonard Bradshaw was from Pegswood in my constituency. He died of mesothelioma aged 66. He did everything necessary to try to find out which employer and insurance companies were to blame. He approached the Association of British Insurers and sent letters to employers. Mr Bradshaw did everything, but sadly he died before the cut-off date with minimal compensation from the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The civil-claim value of his case was in excess of £350,000, but he got less than £25,000. The cut-off date is really important and we need to look at it. It is not fair. I think that 1965 is probably the right date.
	The fourth issue is the clawback of 100% DWP benefits when the Bill pays out only 75% in compensation. Why claw back a greater percentage than what is being paid? I want someone from the Government Front Bench to explain that. Why should we accept that under the premise of fairness? It is not and cannot be fair. Why should the state have a greater right of financial recovery than the victim? Why should the state get 100% back and the victim only 75%? I would be glad to listen to any explanation and perhaps even accept it if there is a valid argument behind it. To depart from a principle of like-for-like offset is both illogical and grossly unjust.
	I want to place on record my thanks to the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, which was set up by the wife of Mick Knighton, who died of mesothelioma at a very young age. It operates from Wallsend in north Tyneside and has raised more than £1 million for mesothelioma research. It does a fantastic job and continues to help everyone who suffers from this horrible, horrendous disease.
	Ideally, the Bill will be enacted before the end of the year. It is broadly welcomed, but it needs to be strengthened for the sake of people who have suffered for so long and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, such as Mr Bradshaw in my constituency and the thousands of hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, contracted this deadly disease. Let us hope that, in the name of fairness, decency and justice, this House can bridge the gaps.

David Anderson: It is not very often that I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), but I want to start by agreeing with the Minister, who was right to say that we should not have had to be here tonight. This issue should have been resolved no later than when the previous Government were in office and probably much earlier than that. As my hon. Friend the Member for North
	Durham (Mr Jones) has said, this has been known about since at least 1965. We should have done something about it. Lots of us had meeting after meeting with the previous Prime Minister and others in the previous Government as we tried to find a way forward. I believe that he was genuine in his approach but that he was badly advised by civil servants and special advisers who were frightened that the cost would escalate. As a result, we did not take the action we should have taken.

Michael Penning: I did not put the blame on any particular previous Government. I referred to Administrations and I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.

David Anderson: I did not say that the Minister said that. The issue should have been resolved, because the facts have not changed between then and now.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund. I have been a patron of that fund for more than a decade. When I was president of Unison I was approached by a former colleague I used to work with in the mines who asked, “Can you help these people out, Dave?”
	It is worth listening to the story of Chris Knighton, whose husband was a classic sufferer of mesothelioma. He would think nothing of getting on a pushbike and riding from Newcastle to Berwick and back again on a Sunday morning before going to the club to see his mates, who had just staggered out of bed. They would be standing at the bar, bleary-eyed, asking, “Where have you been, Mick?” He had done a 100 mile bike ride on a Sunday morning.
	On one of those Sunday mornings, the lad fell on the floor. The following day he went to see his doctor, who told him he had mesothelioma. “What’s that, doctor?” asked Mick. He told him it was asbestos of the lungs. “What can you do?” asked Mick. “Nothing,” said the doctor.
	Within a matter of months, the lad was dead. His widow set up the research fund with a good friend, Anne Craig, and they pledged to raise £100,000. Two years ago they raised £1 million, and all that money has been put into research into this disease. It is people like them and the men, women, children, daughters, wives and husbands who have suffered that this debate should really be about.
	There is a history of people exploiting asbestos throughout the world. I was proud when a member of my trade union went to South Africa and worked alongside Thompsons Solicitors to litigate against companies there. One of the stories they heard in Namibia was that one of the ways in which companies ensured maximum output was by filling big plastic bags with raw asbestos. How did they make sure they were full? They put young Namibian kids in them to tamp down the asbestos as if they were pressing grapes. Those kids were exposed to raw asbestos at the ages of six, seven, eight and nine. Those are the sorts of people behind the desperate negligence under discussion.
	Other diseases have been mentioned. When compensation for plural plaques was challenged in the courts in 2007, the case was won and people stopped getting compensation. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), KPMG announced a £1.4 billion windfall on that same day.
	That is what the insurers got as a result of the Law Lords’ ruling. Members on both sides of the House tried to get our Government to change the law so that those people could get compensation again.
	Other parts of this nation have managed to change the law. Earlier, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) intervened on the Minister in relation to Northern Ireland, and the Scottish Parliament has been able to do it, but we were told that it could not be done in this part of the world. We should have done it.
	Equally, people may not have mesothelioma or anything life threatening, but the truth is the same: they were negligently exposed at work to substances that the employer knew would be damaging. Employers have known that since 1892, when asbestos was first recognised as a poisonous substance. As we have heard, they have known since 1965 that it should have been illegal to do so, but they kept on exposing people to the substance for days, weeks, months and years.
	We are now told that people can have 75% of their compensation. One thing always sticks in my mind in talking about this. I first had real evidence of mesothelioma when I spoke to a lawyer dealing with it, a guy called Ian McFall, who works in the Thompsons north-east office and is a renowned expert on the issue. He told me that the fibres lie dormant for decades, but all of a sudden they become active, the person suffers horribly and then dies.
	I used those words when there was a discussion about this issue some years ago. I was approached via e-mail by a woman who was not one of my constituents, who said that I had really upset her. Her family was sitting there, with their father going through the process, and she had tried to be careful to shield her family from knowing the truth.
	I am sorry that I have to repeat those words today, but the people of this country need to understand how serious this disease is. It is to the credit of the Government and others that they have accepted that this is a very special case, because it is a killer. There are no two ways about it: if you get this, you are going to die. That is the main reason why the situation has been challenged to the extent it has over many years.
	The insurance companies have put forward the compensation as somehow an act of benevolence: “We are being really nice to you, aren’t we?” No, they are not; they have been caught on the hop and forced into a corner to put right what they should have done. The deal struck between the Government and the insurance companies is just that—a deal. It has not involved the people it should have involved to the extent that they should have been involved, whether they are claimants, their support groups or, crucially, the trade unions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck spoke about the work of the trade unions, but that had an impact not only on trade union members but on every member of the public in this country. Many people are not in trade unions or in unionised workplaces, but they have the same rights to compensation and legal redress as those for whom the trade unions work.

Kevan Jones: I read Lords Hansard last night. Does my hon. Friend agree that throughout all the negotiations the Government have had on the Bill,
	those in the driving seat have been the insurance companies? The fact is that we are having to accommodate the situation to suit the insurance companies, rather than the victims.

David Anderson: That is absolutely right. The Government are saying that they can go only so far, because the companies cannot afford more, but they are forgetting the fact that companies have received millions and millions of pounds, which they could and should have put away since 1965, in the knowledge that this might come along one day. Is not the whole point of insurance that people should save for a rainy day? Well, the umbrellas are up now.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that we are talking about sophisticated people, who have battalions of actuaries to look at the figures, and that they would have taken into consideration the possibility of having the cut-off date as 10 February 2010 rather than later? That would have been in their thinking, so why can they not be encouraged to step up to the mark and live up to their responsibilities?

David Anderson: Those people must obviously have realised that there was a potential for that. If the consultation had lasted for a short period, it would have been that date, but without a shadow of a doubt, they clearly could have thought that it might be the start date.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham spoke about some of the consultations. I went to some of the meetings, which Ministers opened and then virtually handed them over to members of the insurance companies to run and to answer questions. Civil servants and Ministers were not engaged; it was people from the Association of British Insurers who answered all the questions, and it was clearly in their interests to do what they have now got away with. It is clear that the scheme will not provide full protection or full compensation.
	I share the concerns of other hon. Members about the level of payment. For the life of me, whatever the cut-off date, I cannot see why the payment should be anything less than 100%. I made the point earlier that there is 100% liability on the employer and the insurer, while 100% of those with this disease have died. If people go through all the hoops they have to go through, which are the same as those in civil litigation, it is not their fault that insurers, employers or both have disappeared; the fault lies with the industry, which collectively should be putting this right. The insurers have had the premiums and have invested them, so they should pay up.
	We are talking about at least 6,000 people who, between them, have lost somewhere in the region of £800 million. Compensation of 75% means that people have to absorb 25% of the ongoing costs. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said that that is at least £43,000. To somebody who is probably on the sick, and whose family is probably not working because they are taking care of them, £43,000 is a life-changing sum of money. It might not be very much to insurance companies or to some of those funded by insurance companies, but it is clearly a lot of money for people at a time of grief.
	I want to pick up what has been said about the exclusion of other diseases. If people have been criminally exposed to a poisonous substance, those who did that
	should be brought to book, and the way to do that is to make them pay compensation. I hope that we would support that and that as the Bill goes forward we can make that case more and more strongly.
	Again, why is the cut-off date not February 2010, which is when the consultation was announced? The written ministerial statement came out two and a half years after that consultation was announced. That was two and a half years of what—things gathering dust and people having discussions? What were civil servants doing? All of a sudden, there was a statement two and a half years later, followed by a discussion period to bring us to where we are now. That clearly is not fair. The minimum has to be February 2010, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham that if we really are serious, we should go back to 1965. My guess is that we probably will not, but we must address that issue in Committee as a matter of real urgency.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is at least some logic in that? The arbitrary date of 2010 is when the consultation started. The fact is that when that started in 2010, the companies knew about the liability. My hon. Friend has pointed out that they took the premiums and saved money by not paying out.

David Anderson: Absolutely. The truth is that the companies knew. What was happening was not a secret. It was not the case that all of a sudden the consultation found that mesothelioma was not caused by exposure at work or employers neglecting their duty in not providing proper safety equipment and so putting people at risk. They knew the likely outcome was that there would be implications for the industry. Clearly, they should have said, “Right, we need to start on this at least as a bottom line.”
	The insurers have apparently said that they think the legislation will be retrospective and amount to unlawful interference with insurance property rights. What a load of gobbledegook. They mean, “We want to keep more money in our pockets. We want to deny people their rights.” They are denying people, either those seeing out their last few days or their families, the right to have a decent life.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that the sums are in stark contrast to some of the eye-watering figures paid out, for example, for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance? These groups of people clearly need the money, and in some cases the victims have suffered a very horrible and painful death.

David Anderson: There is absolutely no comparison between the two, and seeing what has happened for people abused by being wrongly sold PPI when they did not need it does not make this situation any better. This is about people deliberately being exposed to this substance at work. To reiterate, I see no logic in the state saying, “We want back 100% of DWP benefits”. Reading between the lines, my guess is that there is probably nothing else the state can do, but if so, it has to get its act together and change that part of the Bill.
	Some say that we should feel sorry for the insurers and their balance sheets, because if we go beyond the 3% level they will struggle and so put the costs on to people buying insurance today. My hon. Friend the
	Member for North Durham has already mentioned Lloyd’s making £2.77 billion; it clearly is not suffering too much. I would be much happier if the insurers were so strapped for cash that they were not donating huge sums to the Conservative party. Every Wednesday, our Prime Minister comes here, talks to my leader and accuses us of being in the pay of our paymasters, the trade unions. Let us look at the Tory party’s paymasters in the insurance industry.
	It might be coincidental that the Tory party is bankrolled massively by the insurance industry, but it might not. Let us look at some of the figures. [Interruption.] If I can find my glasses, I might be able to tell hon. Members—aged 60 today, I’m not doing bad! Sir John Beckwith and the Beckwith family have donated £524,000 to the Conservative party at central and local level; Caledonia Investments and the Cayzer family have donated £275,300; Centrepoint Insurance has donated £10,000; Dickinson insurance brokers has donated £2,000; General Insurance Brokers has donated £5,000; Hampden insurance has donated £16,800; Michael Spencer and IPGL—this is eye-watering—have donated £3, 929,892.52; the Keswick family in Scotland have donated, between them, somewhere in the region of £523,000; Norwich Union has donated £8,500; R L Davison and Co., from Lloyd’s, donated £5,000; and Theodore Agnew, who founded Town and Country Assistance, has donated £134,000.
	If someone today, instead of those names, was saying, “Unison, T&G, Amicus, Unite, the GMB”, we would be being told, “You’re being bought off by the trade unions”, but I could never be that callous towards the Minister or his friends. It does make us think though. This deal has been hatched between the Government and the insurance companies. The restrictions in the Bill are illogical. The clawback from the DWP, the start date for claims—they really say, “There’s something going on here.” Is the Conservative party worried about going too far and upsetting the insurance companies? I hope we can flush this out in Committee and say, “Listen, this has to be paid, because it’s a moral duty.”
	We are in a cleft stick tonight. I will probably vote yes tonight, but I feel abused. I feel abused on behalf of the people I work with day in, day out and the families who are helping them to get through this thing. I feel as though I am being blackmailed, because if we do not support the Bill tonight, we will be accused of stopping the Bill and not supporting what we all need to do for these people. I support the Bill with huge reluctance, therefore, and hope that when it returns here, it is in much better shape than it is tonight.

Nia Griffith: I rise to speak to this extremely important Bill. I take a strong constituency and personal interest in the subject, having seen people and their families suffer from this terrible disease. Under the previous Government, I sat on the Committee for the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill, part 4 of which set up the mesothelioma payments scheme in 2008.
	The Bill is the result of the consultation exercise that Labour set up in February 2010. I share with my hon. Friends the considerable concern that it has taken nearly two and a half years for the Bill to come to fruition, particularly given that the results of the consultation were already on Ministers’ desks when the Government
	changed. It has taken a considerable time, and there is serious concern about the victims and families who will miss out as a result of the delay.
	I want to talk, first, about an area that has not been mentioned particularly today, before adding my voice to some of the strong criticisms from the Opposition. I am concerned about the implications for reputable small businesses that are unable to trace insurance. It is very difficult for a victim trying to suss out exactly who their employer was when they contracted the disease, particularly if they worked for several different employers, and for them then to suss out who the insurer was for that particular employer. Victims are now finding that many of the companies they have worked for have disappeared or re-emerged under different names, and sometimes the only company a claimant can find will be one of a few family firms that have a good reputation in an area and which want to maintain good health and safety standards.
	One case in my constituency concerns a highly reputable firm that probably never had any asbestos anywhere near the victim. Nevertheless, it has to prove that and defend itself, because none of the myriad other companies that the poor sufferer of mesothelioma worked for still exist. Even prior to 1969 when the Labour Government made employers’ liability insurance compulsory, we are pretty certain that most companies had such insurance because there was no massive increase in the number of companies taking it out. Nevertheless, records seem difficult to trace. The case goes back a considerable number of years, and finding proof of that insurance is extremely difficult.
	The Bill establishes a technical committee, and its remit will be to make decisions on questions that arise
	“between a potential insurance claimant and an insurer about whether an employer maintained employers’ liability insurance with the insurer at a particular time.”
	A potential insurance claimant is defined in the Bill as a victim, a relative of a victim of mesothelioma who has passed away, or
	“an employer alleged…to be liable for damages in respect of the disease or death.”
	The technical committee has an extremely important role, and responsible employers are anxious that employers should be represented on it. If a potential insurance claimant can be defined in that way, it seems only fair that the technical committee set up to adjudicate on such matters should include employer representation. Will the Secretary of State or Minister confirm, either today or certainly before the Bill Committee, that employers will be represented on the technical committee?
	Briefly, I will also mention the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office, and ask that the Government continue to identify areas for improvement. We know that as a result of the consultation last year, the Government have already announced their intention to require employers’ liability insurers to be members of the ELTO, and it is important that potential claimants can access from the ELTO the information they need as simply as possible. Promises have been made in the other place about improving the money available for research, and taking the issue extremely seriously. I know that a lot of good work has been done, not least by the former hon. Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, Michael Clapham.
	Some areas of the Bill are not at the point they should be, including the percentage of payment—a point raised by a number of my hon. Friends. Insurance companies have said that they would consider figures that go up to 3% of gross written premium. Why on earth are the Government settling for 75% of average civil compensation claims when their team has produced figures to indicate that 90% would still mean that insurance companies are looking at a percentage of GWP of something like 2.9%—well within the 3% limit? Indeed, 95% of average civil compensation claims would be only 3.05% of GWP, and 100% would be 3.19%. The Government could clearly afford 90% of average civil compensation claims as a very minimum, rather than a measly 75% that leaves people up to £18,000 worse off than if the average were 90%. There is no excuse for plucking a figure out of the air rather than matching what insurance companies have said they could afford.
	On the date from which the scheme should commence, it was clear back in February 2010 that we were looking at an insurance company-funded scheme. In other words, the insurance companies were fully aware of what was being discussed in the consultation. They knew it would be an industry-funded scheme, so there is no excuse for the funding not to start from then, if not considerably earlier, as a number of my hon. Friends have pointed out.
	Other diseases related to asbestos—asbestosis, pleural plaques and cancers related to asbestos—account for 50% of cases, but would account for only 20% of the cost. Many sufferers could benefit, but they are not included in the provisions in the Bill. People ask how it is possible to identify those diseases and whether it is possible to trace them back, yet the T&N Asbestos Trust manages to do so and administers claims for other asbestos diseases, as well as mesothelioma.
	Many of my hon. Friends noted the disparity between the Department for Work and Pensions’ 100% clawback of benefits and the Bill allowing for a claim of only 75% of the average civil compensation. That is a huge disparity, with the state clawing back unfairly considerably more than a victim can claim in compensation.
	I welcome the Bill and want to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible to help the victims and their families, but I have serious reservations. This is a missed opportunity: the Bill could be considerably more generous to claimants and ask a great deal more from insurance companies.

Kevan Jones: Many Members welcome the Bill. I welcome that a move has finally been made on compensation for mesothelioma victims, but I do not welcome the Bill in its present form. Irwin Mitchell, a firm of solicitors in Newcastle that deals with compensation cases, described this as “a second-rate Bill.” I totally agree. A lot has been said tonight on the history of mesothelioma claims. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, was clear that all the major changes on asbestos-related legislation have been made under Labour Administrations.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) is not in her place. She spoke well in summing up some of the issues. She admitted that she was a poacher turned gamekeeper, but her points were well
	made. She talked about serving on the Public Bill Committee—I am not sure whether the Whips will allow her to be a member of the Committee after that speech. She mentioned the figure of 80% and I will come back to that later on in my contribution. I take the view that in negotiations one should never declare one’s final figure at the beginning. If she is aiming for 80%, she should have started negotiating for a much higher figure. The current figure is totally unacceptable. I pay tribute to Lord McKenzie of Luton for his work when he was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions under the previous Government, and for his work in the other place in trying to amend the Bill.
	The tragedy—it is a tragedy—is that asbestos-related deaths have been known for many years, but they have been ignored. It is a cruel and painful death. I saw many cases when I was legal officer for the GMB northern region and no amount of money can compensate for suffering a long lingering death, literally gasping for air at the end, or for the pain that families go through while watching their loved ones die. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) mentioned a number of cases relating to traditional industries in his constituency. One tragic case I had to deal with concerned a 44-year-old lagger—I think the proper title is thermal insulation engineer—who used to lag pipes in the shipbuilding and offshore industries. This chap, who was 43, had a wife and three young children, so it was terrible to be told that he was suffering from mesothelioma. The most tragic aspect of this case was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) —that it was a death sentence. This man had to face the fact that he would not live to see his children grow up or to continue the close relationship he had with his family and extended family within Hartlepool. This man was 43, but I have also dealt with cases of people who were a lot older.
	Much reference has been made to the fact that the disease might take 30 or 40 years to develop, but in my experience it is quite arbitrary whether the disease develops following exposure to asbestos. I remember speaking to some old boilermakers—I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough will have done so, too, in his previous life before coming here—who described dealing with asbestos as “lagging it on” and “blowing it on”. They would walk into double bottoms in ships and be surrounded by airborne asbestos, yet some of them have not developed a long-term, asbestos-related condition. I have also seen some very old gentlemen with asbestos still scarring their hands. The arbitrary nature of the disease makes it very difficult to predict who will ultimately develop mesothelioma or other asbestos-related cancers and conditions.
	When I was elected in 2001, I shared an office for my first six months with my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr Hamilton) and John MacDougall, the former Member for Glenrothes. Some colleagues may remember John—a larger than life character, a dedicated constituency MP and a former council leader. It was tragic that his career in this House was cut short by mesothelioma in 2008. John’s attitude was very positive. He knew, deep down, that he was dying, but he came back to this Chamber, even after quite aggressive surgery on one of his lungs, and maintained the cheerful and positive manner for which we all knew him. Unfortunately,
	he did succumb to that disease, showing that it can affect people like him who worked in the shipbuilding industry many years ago.
	Much of our attention has quite rightly been focused on heavy industry, but this disease does not just affect people working in heavy industries. There are well-documented cases of people who have had very limited exposure to asbestos in hospitals or other public buildings, yet have gone on to develop mesothelioma. Again, that shows the arbitrary nature of this disease.
	Personally, I think there are a lot of scare stories about asbestos. Some of the press could be labelled “asbestos deniers”, but asbestos is a safe product as long as it is not disturbed. As was said earlier, we need to educate people about how to use asbestos and how to react to it. As a minimum, asbestos should be marked on any public building. If it is not disturbed, it is not dangerous, but we must ensure that when it is removed, it is done professionally by people who know what they are doing. That should help to prevent any further damaging exposure, which is important for the future.
	As I said earlier, the tragedy of this and other asbestos-related conditions is that the danger has been known for many years. Even the ancient Greeks and Romans worked out that if people worked for a while with asbestos, they developed a disease and died. Moving on to the 1930s, there was the Meriwether report, in which the term mesothelioma was first used. We have thus known from the 1930s that the condition was related to asbestos.
	I know that the date of knowledge is 1965 for the purposes of the courts, but earlier cases have been documented. The Government wrote to the Confederation of Shipbuilders after the second world war, congratulating it on the work that it had done during the conflict but warning about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. However, nothing was done to protect people from those dangers. Our failure to take the warning more seriously and react to it at the time is a national scandal, and a dark stain on the nation’s history. As my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) said earlier, if this had been happening in a leafy suburb, Governments would have paid attention to it more quickly, but those affected were mainly poor working-class communities in areas such as the north-east.
	I pay tribute to the campaigning work of the asbestos awareness groups, which have been tenacious in ensuring that the issue has remained in the public eye. They should be given credit for the fact that the Bill has at least reached its starting point. I am not afraid to say that I think we should also congratulate the trade unions on the work that they have done for many years in raising awareness. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State accused me of chuntering earlier, but he is chuntering now. That is obviously because the modern Conservative party considers trade unions to be universally bad. However, the test cases and the education about asbestos that followed them would not have been possible without the trade unions who championed those cases, and they ought to be thanked for that.
	I also pay tribute to Ian McFall of Thompsons in Newcastle, who was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). I worked with him closely when I was the GMB’s legal officer, and he was very tenacious in his efforts to ensure that cases were heard and compensation was secured
	for people. A difficulty that used to confront me every week was caused by the fact that, in the case of many older men, it was not known that they had contracted mesothelioma until they died. It is awful to have to say to a family “There must be an autopsy to establish what this person has died of.” I remember one alarming occasion when someone rang two days before a funeral was due to take place, and Ian and I had to stop the funeral to ensure that there was an autopsy so that the evidence could be used. Ian has great expertise when it comes to compiling the history of where people worked and trying to trace the insurance companies. It is time-consuming, laborious work, but it can be done.
	It is important for anyone who has worked with asbestos to make a record of where they worked with it. I pay tribute to those in GMB Northern Region who, along with their solicitors, set up an asbestos register on which people were asked to log that information. They might not have developed the disease yet, but if they developed it later, at least it would be possible to establish where they had worked. It was not uncommon for people to move around different shipyards on both Teesside and Tyneside, and before nationalisation it was sometimes very difficult to establish who their actual employer was. Another industry that proved notoriously difficult in that regard from the late 1980s onwards was the building industry, in which people moved from site to site—usually on a very casual basis—and were exposed to asbestos throughout their working lives. Trying to put together some of those long employment histories was very difficult. That is why I recommend that anyone who has worked with asbestos make sure that loved ones or solicitors know where they worked, because this disease can develop later on and that is vital information in order to be able to trace the employers and the insurers and companies involved.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool raised the issue of the north-east, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). The north-east has nearly 10% of England’s mesothelioma cases. That will not come as a surprise to anyone who knows anything about asbestos-related diseases, because of the north-east’s heavy engineering, coal mining, shipyards and other industries that dealt with asbestos. Between 1985 and 2005, some 2,387 people in the north-east died of mesothelioma, and that is not counting all the other asbestos-related illnesses people died from. In that period, 192 people died in Durham, 72 of them in my constituency.
	I agree that it is very important to talk about the figures, but I have dealt with these individuals and have seen the awful way in which they die and the agony their families go through––and the poverty, because it is the breadwinner who goes from many of these families. I therefore know that we are not talking about people who have access to large amounts of discretionary income or expenditure. They need this compensation. It will not be a luxury for these individuals but something to support their loved ones in future.
	The key thing people who are dying from mesothelioma say they want is help so they can leave money and know their families are taken care of. They want to be able to die with the knowledge that their families will be taken care of. That is not always possible. As has been said,
	thoroughness in these cases is very important. There are certain firms with a specialism in doing asbestos work, but I have come across some atrocious solicitors as well, who have taken on cases but, frankly, should not have been let loose on them at all.
	In many cases, these individuals would not have got access to justice through the courts system if it had not been for the trade union movement. That is true not only in terms of their individual cases, but also in taking forward some of the very expensive early test cases that established the case law in this area.
	That we have a Bill is welcome, but it is a very disappointing Bill. Much has been said about the insurance companies and, having dealt with them over a number of years, I can tell Members that trying to get money out of them can be very difficult, as sometimes they will try anything in order not to accept a claim, not only in these areas but in other personal injury cases as well.
	The insurance companies have done very well out of this Government. They have convinced everybody that there is a claims culture in this country, which there clearly is not if we cut away from the headlines and look at all the actual evidence. They have got assistance through changes in the law that help them rather than the victims in a whole array of personal injury cases, and they are going to get off the hook again under this Bill as it stands, because, basically, what it does is cap their liability.
	The estimate is £350 million. That is a large sum of money to individuals, but we also need to consider that the insurance companies have not only not paid out for these cases that they took premiums for over many years, but they have had the premiums and then failed to pay out about £800 million of claims on them. If we add it all up, £350 million is not a great deal of money.
	It is also not a great deal of money if we look at the profits the insurance companies have made over the previous few years. Let me mention a few, just to give a flavour. Lloyd’s of London posted pre-tax profits of £1.5 billion between January and June 2012 and its profits for the whole of 2012 were £2.77 billion. Royal Sun Alliance had pre-tax profits of £233 million between January and June 2012. The £350 million being offered here is therefore in stark contrast to the profits that some of these companies are making.
	In fact, according to the Bill, these companies will not pay the money themselves anyway, because it will be a levy that they will get from future premiums. In the other place, Lord Freud said:
	“The levy will be imposed on active employers’ liability insurers at large, not on the individual insurers who took the premiums and who were on cover in the cases that will come to the scheme.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 691.]
	So the insurance companies are not even dipping into their profits for the scheme as it stands. If that is not a good deal for them, I do not know what is. They have been in the driving seat, and the Government’s argument, certainly in the other place, has been that if we do what the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford wants to do—increase the compensation level to 80%—that would somehow be a show-stopping moment.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the insurers have already had a windfall in the form of cases that have been badly pursued—loss of services and
	earnings claims that have not been pursued properly—and cases that have never emerged? The insurers have already had a windfall, therefore, several times over.

Kevan Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is true that there has been bad litigation, and certain solicitors have settled for woeful amounts. Also, there are a number of people who had claims but died and never pursued them.
	I find it strange that we started with a figure of 70% and ended up at 75%. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, who was not present when I started speaking, said that she would like to see 80%, but I suggest that she should have started a bit higher and worked down from there. In negotiations, people should never start at the figure they actually want, so perhaps she should have started at 95%. If she is lucky enough to get on the Bill Committee, I suggest that she start at, say, 88% and work downwards to the 80% figure that she wants. There is no rationale for the 75% figure.
	The hon. Lady made a very good point about future liability. Since 1972, such insurance has been compulsory, so most future cases will be covered by insurance policies. Potentially, the next biggest area is public buildings and schools, but most such cases will not come under this scheme because it will be possible to prove who the insurer is and who is liable for the risk. It is therefore not clear to me what the 75% figure is based on. The Minister said that he will produce the various figures. It would have been helpful to have had those during the debates in the other place and today, so that we could have examined the basis of the negotiations.
	As I said earlier, it seems that the insurance companies have been in the driving seat in these negotiations, which is a very strange way of negotiating on behalf of the victims, which is what I expect the Government to be doing. They will have done the modelling and know exactly the various costs involved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough said, we are not talking about people who do not calculate risk. They calculate risk, and they also calculate the age profiles of the groups that will be affected. I therefore find it odd that we do not have the relevant figures before us today. Again, that should not be the starting point for the insurance companies. The starting point should be to ask what the maximum compensation could be for the victims of this missed justice, and I believe that 100% is the right figure. I know that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford thinks differently, but if we at least start at 100%, we might end up with a better figure than the one that is on the table.
	It was also pointed out that the figure is not simply 75%, but 75% of the average. People should not expect payments that are on a par with those resulting from litigation settlements or other insurance policies. These arrangements will not be like that at all, and many of the people who should rightly get compensation because they have been affected by the disease through no fault of their own are going to be short-changed. Let us remember that the insurance companies took the premiums and benefited from them for many years. There is a debate to be had in Committee on that.
	Will the Minister tell us how the negotiations have taken place? If the rules were set by the insurance companies, rather than by the Government setting down the starting point, they will have been poor negotiations
	because they will have started from the wrong premise. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon wants to question the Government’s motives in this regard, and he has every right to do so, but if we are on the victims’ side, we should be trying to get the maximum compensation for them irrespective of our political party allegiance.
	It is also remarkable that the insurance companies seem to have been in the driving seat in setting the date of diagnosis from which the scheme will apply—namely, 25 July 2012. Lord Freud spoke in the other place about how that decision would affect insurance companies. He said that if an earlier date were set, the levy would go up, which would be unaffordable. Like the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, I would like to see the figures. How did the Government arrive at that position?
	It has been pointed out that the insurance companies have known since February 2010 that this change was coming. I doubt that they are so bad that they will not make provision for this in their calculations, but the Government need to explain why that date of July 2012 has been stuck to. Was it at the insistence of the insurance companies? I guess it was, because it will limit their liabilities. Frankly, if I were them, I would be laughing all the way to the bank if I could cut my liabilities in that way.
	I accept that, whenever we set an arbitrary date, there will be people who fall either side of the line, but many of those campaigning on behalf of loved ones who died from mesothelioma before that date will not get a penny out of this scheme. What is the logic in what has been decided? People have argued that it would be logical to set a 2010 date because that was when the consultation started and that it would be fair to the insurance companies to give them some warning, but that is complete nonsense. The insurance companies have known about this for years; it has not come as a surprise to them. There would at least be some logic in going back to the date of knowledge of mesothelioma, in regard to the other legal cases, because that argument has been formed in law.
	When I suggested this approach earlier, the Minister intervened to say that a huge group would be included, because it would include families. There are two issues involved here. First, a number of people will have died in the intervening period, so we are not going to get any new cases from that—this is about historical cases. I accept that legacy cases could come from families who want to pursue a claim, but there will be very few of those. I have done asbestos work for a number of years and I know the detail of it. In these cases, someone needs detailed knowledge of where individuals worked and were exposed to asbestos. In addition, a lot of these people who died of asbestos-related diseases such as mesothelioma would have died without even knowing this. I find it difficult to believe that the insurance companies have not done some modelling to know what that figure could be. It would have been good for us today, and when the Bill was introduced, if someone had at least asked how many potential cases could be in that group, but that has not been asked. Again, we have just accepted that this would be onerous for the insurance companies—that may be true, but let us find out what the number is. That debate has not been had. That earlier date would be more defendable than even the 2010
	decision, which would be arbitrary in that respect. I am not a lawyer, so I look to the lawyers in the room to answer whether or not people will legally challenge a date, if it is agreed, of 2012 or 2010 on the basis that the date of knowledge goes back to 1965. There is a potential there for more delay.
	One thing that the Minister said in opening was that we needed to get on with this, and I do not disagree. However, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford said, it is important that we get it right because once this deal is signed with the insurance companies, there will be no going back. There will be no trying to open this up later for other cases or trying to change the scheme, because the insurance companies will be wedded to this in terms of what they want.

Stephen Lloyd: I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said, but am I right in saying that as a colleague in the other place laid this down as a regulation rather than a ministerial order, there is more flexibility for Parliament to improve, change or reorder the scheme as it goes forward? We could improve it specifically by laying it down that way.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman is being very optimistic. I do not know whether he has ever dealt with insurance companies, but if he thinks they are going to reopen this one, he is being naive, to put it politely. He is a Liberal Democrat, after all, so that is possibly acceptable. The answer to his question is no, he is not; once this has been done, that will be it. That is the important point.
	The other issue I wish to discuss is other conditions. Mesothelioma is clearly a death sentence. [Interruption.] Sorry, I am never fair to Liberal Democrats. The hon. Gentleman may be trying to get some sympathy from me on behalf of Liberal Democrats, but he is certainly not going to get any after what they have done in supporting this Government. If he is looking for sympathy for Liberal Democrats, he can forget it.
	There are other diseases involved here, and it is very interesting to read what Lord Freud said in the other place. He said:
	“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases through negligence or breach of statutory duty and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]
	It would be interesting to know what other compensation schemes or other redress the Government are considering introducing. I would not hold my breath, given the record of other Conservative Governments. They have never done anything. This is the first time they have done something for asbestos victims. We do need to know though, because Lord Freud, who has a strange relationship with the Conservative party, is clearly sympathetic to looking at some of the other debilitating asbestos-related conditions.

Gordon Birtwistle: The hon. Gentleman comments on what the Conservatives have done over many years. Will he, during his speech, explain what the Labour Government did on this issue for the 13 years they were in power?

Kevan Jones: If there is one thing that annoys me it is people who wander into a debate, having not listened to any of the discussion. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to read out all the legislation, I certainly will, but it has already been done. If he could trouble himself to sit through and listen to the debate, he might find it a good way of understanding what is going on. If he reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck read out the long list of what the Labour Government have done for asbestos victims in the past. Not one single piece of that legislation was ever done on a Conservative Government’s watch, apart from this one. Please read with interest Hansard tomorrow—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering in a jovial sort of way; he is a jovial sort of chap. He has a nervous smile on his face, which is quite excusable as he has a lot to be nervous about.
	The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford raised the issue of research. The research into mesothelioma under the previous Government was good but it is time-limited. When we look at the amount of money that has gone into cancer research, it is shocking to realise what a small amount has gone into mesothelioma. That funding has been important for the pioneering research that has been done with the British Lung Foundation. I agree with her that we need to insert some reference to research in the Bill. Without that—I know that she is poacher turned gamekeeper and clearly knows the inside track and how the companies operate—there is no way that the insurance companies will voluntarily give up any money to research unless they have to. I hope that the Bill gets amended in Committee and that the Government support such research, because it has been important in understanding the condition and in looking for possible treatments in the future.
	In conclusion—[Interruption.] I can go on if the Minister wishes me to. I am glad that we finally have a Bill before us, but it is not the Bill that mesothelioma victims require. It needs huge change, and I hope that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford is on the Committee and can argue from the Government Benches, in the articulate way that she did tonight, some of the points to improve the Bill as it goes forward.

Gemma Doyle: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) no matter how long he speaks for. Anyone who watched “Britain and the Sea” last night—I think it was on BBC1—would have seen a great deal of my constituency, because it was all about shipbuilding on the Clyde. Unfortunately, that is now part of our history because the remaining yards on the Clyde are not in my constituency. Although we are proud of the industry, we have two quite stark reminders of our shipbuilding past that we would rather not have. One is a large derelict piece of land at Queen’s quay, on which I hope we will soon see some houses built. The second is the scourge of asbestos exposure, which leads to, among other things, the horrible cancer that is mesothelioma. As we have heard this evening, people have also been exposed in a number of other industries—among other things, my constituency had an asbestos factory.
	Being diagnosed with such a disease is bad enough, but having to fight not only it but for compensation is a double blow. The average life expectancy following diagnosis
	with mesothelioma is about two years, which people should not have to spend battling to ensure that their family have a little financial security.
	I welcome the Bill and want to see it become law as soon as possible, but I also want the House to work together, if possible—it looks like that will be possible—to make it better. The Bill could and should be better.
	I want to reinforce a number of points that Members have already covered today. My first concern is the level of compensation. Why should it be set at only 75% of the average paid out? I wanted to ask the Minister that as he was making his opening speech, but he refused to take more interventions—I do not know whether he takes a daily allowance of three—and we did not get an answer to that question. I urge the Government to consider raising the level to at least 90%, although hon. Members have suggested other figures. According to the Government’s own analysis, that would still fall within the 3% levy on premiums that the industry tells us it can afford. The pay-outs would be raised by an additional £18,000, and I hope that proposal is considered seriously in Committee.
	Secondly, the cut-off date for those eligible for the scheme has simply been set far too late and does not kick in until a good two years after the consultation was launched. Whether the two-year delay is attributable to the wheels of the civil service turning slowly, or Ministers prevaricating with or placating the insurance industry, that is two years in which people will have been diagnosed who are now excluded from the scheme. There is a seriously twisted irony in the fact that, as I have said, the average life expectancy following diagnosis with mesothelioma is approximately the same length of time—two years.
	As other Members have argued, it is entirely justifiable for the kick-in date to be put back to February 2010, when the consultation and the intention to legislate for an industry-funded scheme were first announced. An industry whose business is assessment and the management of risk would have made plans to meet that responsibility from the very first mention of it.
	Thirdly, like other hon. Members I am concerned about the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases from the scheme and see no reason why it is limited to mesothelioma only. Lord Freud said in the other place:
	“The issue of individuals who have developed other asbestos-related diseases…and are unable to bring a civil claim for damages of course needs to be addressed.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 May 2013; Vol. 745, c. 690.]
	I hope that the Government and the Minister will deal with that issue at some point.
	Fourthly, there is the inequitable situation of the compensation that is to be paid out compared with the clawback of previously awarded benefits or lump sum payments. There is no logic whatsoever in awarding claimants only 75% of civil compensation rates while clawing back 100% of previously awarded benefits or lump sum payments, and I hope that that issue will be dealt with in Committee.
	Those are the four key points that need to be addressed. Research has been mentioned and I note that in the Lords a commitment was made to a joint strategy with the Department of Health on encouraging proposals for research on mesothelioma. I hope that will be taken forward. I also back the suggestion, made
	by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), that industry should contribute to research.
	I pay tribute to Clydebank Asbestos Group in my constituency. The people who run it are volunteers; they are not paid, but—I am not overstating this—they genuinely dedicate their life to helping people who have been affected by asbestos-related diseases, wherever they live. They deal with victims and their families. They campaign, run very informative conferences in my constituency, and offer advice and support that is both professional and personal. They see people at various stages of the disease; some have literally just walked out of the doctor’s surgery, having been diagnosed, and are afraid and confused, and do not know what their diagnosis means. They assist people who are battling for compensation. Everybody who walks through the door of the group’s shop sees a friendly face, and gets a cup of tea, and advice and support that are absolutely second to none.
	Some, if not all, of the volunteers have lost friends or loved ones to asbestos-related diseases. I want to share a few words of Joan Baird’s. I know her well; she is one of the group’s stalwarts, and she lost her husband some years ago. If anyone would like to read her story, it is on the group’s website. This is what she said about her husband:
	“How do I feel! Cheated, lonely and empty; denied the autumn of my years with my husband. The doctors confirmed that Willie most likely would have lived to a ripe old age had it not been for this devastating disease. Like thousands of others he was killed by corporate murder. UNFORGIVABLE.”
	I hope that the Government will consider the improvements to the Bill that Members on both sides of the House have suggested this evening. I also hope that the Minister will enter more fully into the spirit of debate in his closing remarks, given his refusal to take interventions and answer legitimate questions during his opening remarks. He shakes his head, but he did not do justice to this very serious issue.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to have been called to speak so late in this debate. I apologise to both Front Benchers, and to most of the speakers who preceded me, for not having been here throughout the debate. I declare an interest as a former asbestos worker. I suspect that not many former asbestos workers have spoken in the debate. If they have, I suspect that they were from the Labour Benches. No disrespect to Government Members, but hearing from such speakers gives us greater insight into the issue.
	I am a former fire brigade worker, and I suspect that I share the same background as the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—or is he right hon.?

Michael Penning: indicated dissent.

Jim Fitzpatrick: He has not been promoted yet. When we worked in the fire service, we used asbestos anti-fire equipment; we had asbestos hoods and gloves. We are lucky: having worked for local authority fire brigades, we know our employers, know that they are insured, and can trace them. Should anything happen to us
	—goodness forbid—our families could track back and seek appropriate compensation for our early demise. Clearly, that is not the situation for thousands of other asbestos workers, especially those who worked in industries and businesses that have gone out of business or become defunct.
	On the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) about being able to track people, when I was the senior health and safety official at London fire brigade, I got management to agree that every member of London fire brigade who served before the withdrawal of asbestos equipment would have “asbestos-exposed” on their personal record file, so thousands of firefighters are covered. London fire brigade was great in making sure that that happened.
	I share the Labour Front Benchers’ five key concerns about the Bill: that the level of compensation is lower than it should be; that other asbestos-related diseases have been excluded; the decision on the cut-off date; the clawback of benefits; and, most importantly, the level of research into asbestos-related diseases. We have some very strong points to make. It is clear that there is support in the other place, especially from senior Members on the Government Benches. I would be very surprised if Government Front Benchers in this House did not have great sympathy with a number of the points raised by the British Lung Foundation and other charities that provided briefings for today’s debate.
	I look forward to the Bill going into Committee and to having discussions with Government Front Benchers. I look forward to them being as accommodating as they can be, because bringing the Bill forward is a great signal of their intention to deal fairly with the victims of asbestosis and those suffering from mesothelioma. I think that the Bill can be improved and hope that the Government see it that way, too.

Chris Bryant: It was a great delight to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) provide that final rousing contribution, because even though he was not here for any of the debate, he managed to catch its whole flavour and repeat everything that has been said. I think that everyone agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) when she congratulated the Government on bringing forward the legislation. We warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), on bringing forward the Bill. In all honesty, we hope that they will help us improve it, because we certainly intend to help them.
	I thought that the Minister got off to a slightly bad start by not taking interventions. He ended up intervening on twice as many Members as he took interventions from in his speech. He intends to speak a second time, which is purely in the gift of the House and not just because he says so, but it might have been easier if he had taken more interventions. I sympathise that the first piece of legislation that he has to take through the House in his new role has a name that is quite difficult to pronounce. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) came up with a good suggestion, which was that rather than bothering to say mesothelioma all the time, we should just call it meso.

Michael Penning: Is that not a soup?

Chris Bryant: I think that is spelt with an “i”, not an “e”.
	As many Members have pointed out, cancer of the mesothelium is a particularly cruel disease. First, it affects some of the worst paid in society and some of those who do the hardest physical labour, who are not rewarded particularly well at all. That is why we have heard from so many hon. Members this afternoon about how the parts of the country and the communities most affected are those that have had some of the toughest industries, whether shipbuilding, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) pointed out, or down on the Medway, as the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out, or in Totnes, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston)—she is unable to be here at the moment, for understandable reasons—pointed out. Sometimes a whole family can be affected, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) explained. We heard a particularly sad story from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce), who told us about his brother, who recently died as a result of mesothelioma.
	Mesothelioma is also cruel because of the long tail, which many Members referred to, which means that it is often almost impossible to track down the details of the company from which a victim might need to claim compensation, because it is such a long time since the asbestos was introduced into the body.
	Mesothelioma is also cruel because the insurance industry, as many Members have pointed out, has behaved cruelly through its extreme reluctance to provide compensation. Sometimes it is the negligence of the industry in keeping proper records across the years that has made it all the more difficult for people to get redress. Finally, it is cruel because once a person has contracted the illness, as many Members have explained, the length of time before death is so short. Who in this House would want somebody to have to spend their last dying months trying vigorously to chase down lawyers and insurance companies?
	Many issues were raised, but I will cover those that are particularly important and have been mentioned constantly. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, in an excellent speech that I could not fault—I hope one day to see her on the Labour Benches—made the very valid point that the 75% compensation that is being allowed for by the Government is not borne out by the figures to which the insurance industry has already signed up through its 3% commitment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, there is a perfectly good moral case for saying that it should be 100% compensation. We will want to tease out these issues in Committee. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about being able to provide us with numbers and statistics before we get to the first Committee date, because it feels as though there has been a bit of jiggery-pokery over these numbers in the past few weeks while the Bill was in the other place and since then.
	The second key issue is the earlier start date that many of us think would be suitable. That was mentioned by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who is not in his place. It seems inconceivable that any part of the insurance industry was unaware that there was
	going to be a scheme of this kind after the Labour Government started the consultation in February 2010, so it is only fair that we should go back to the earlier start date. Several other Members referred to this, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who had an interesting idea about how judges would have reacted if there were an illness that affected only judges and whether legislation would have been introduced rather more swiftly.
	The third issue, which was raised by several Members, including the hon. Member for Totnes, is about self-employed people and people who manifestly fall outside the scheme as currently organised, including those who might have contracted mesothelioma by virtue of washing their partner’s clothes. We will want to return to those matters in Committee.
	Fourthly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East mentioned, there is the 25% that is apparently being allocated to lawyers. When I first arrived in the House, one of the big issues facing mining constituencies such as mine was the miners’ compensation Bill. The biggest row we had was with lawyers who wanted to extract unnecessarily ludicrous fees for work that could already be paid for, and in fact was paid for, by the Government. We will want to shine some light on the precise statistics. If a significant amount of money—say £7,000, a figure that has been stated several times—ends up being taken out of people’s compensation to pay for lawyers, that would not be the justice that people are looking for.
	The fifth issue, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), is who runs the scheme and who will sit on the technical committee. She also referred to the very important requirement on us to consider how to ensure that that is not just a stitch-up between Government and the big players in the industry when much smaller players need to be considered as well.
	The sixth issue, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire mentioned, is the 100% clawback. It seems intrinsically unfair for the Government to say, “You can only receive 75% of the compensation that you would get if you were going through the civil courts in the normal way, but we will take back 100% of the money that you received in benefits.” There may be arguments to be had about that, but it is something else that we will want to look at in Committee. It was also referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).
	I hope the Minister will also address the question of the timetable for the Bill. The programme motion allows for the last Committee sitting to take place on 17 December. We have always wanted to help the Government get the Bill through as fast as possible, with the sole caveat that, while it is a good Bill, it could be immensely better. Of course, we want to ensure that there is adequate time not just for consideration in Committee, but for consideration on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. My anxiety is that if the Committee finishes considering the Bill on 17 December, the Bill’s Third Reading will be on 19 December—the day Parliament will rise. I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us about that, but I cannot see how else he will be able to get the Bill through before Christmas.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) made an extremely good point, namely that we should stop talking about whether the Bill is generous, generous enough or not generous enough. The most important thing to recognise is that this is not about generosity. It is not some kind of charitable act that we are doing; we are trying to right an injustice. It is a fairly simple point. We believe that it is only really possible to right that injustice if we improve the Bill by ensuring that people get a better deal with regard to the percentage of compensation on offer, as well as by going back to an earlier date and by looking at some of the many other issues that have been raised.
	I assure the Minister that we will do everything in our power to help him get the Bill through, but at the moment it has only three stars and by the end we want it to have five. That will require amendments and his co-operation.

Michael Penning: With the leave of the House, I will respond to the debate, which I opened earlier today.
	May I say from the outset that my intention was for as many Members as possible to be able to take part in this important debate? Seventeen colleagues, including those on the two Front Benches, have taken part. I could have taken a few more interventions, but if I had taken too many the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) would certainly not have got in. Anyone in the House who knows me will know that that was my intention and that I was not trying to shirk my responsibilities in any way. Perhaps when the hon. Lady has been here a little bit longer, she will know me a bit better.
	Interestingly, many Members have said that the Government are in bed with lots of different parties and that perhaps I am anti-trade union. Many Members will know that I am a proud member of the Fire Brigades Union and that I was a member of Unison’s predecessor when I was a lifeguard in Castle Point in Essex after I first left the Army. It is important that we pay tribute to those who have worked so very hard over the years to introduce not just this Bill, but others. I pay tribute to the trade unions for the work they have done over the years and to the victim support groups across the country.
	I also want to acknowledge something that my former colleague from the fire service, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, acknowledged in part, namely that, while this disease has massively affected areas of heavy industry—I understand fully what many Members from the north-east have said—it does not cherry-pick. It is possible for someone to glance past an area with asbestos one day, pick up the disease and not know about it for another 40 years. As has been said, many people who are in work do not know that they have been in contact with asbestos. In some cases, their employers might not even know, especially if they run the emergency services.
	I am reminded of my former colleagues in Glasgow and the work they did over the weekend. They would not have thought about whether there was asbestos in there; they would have gone straight in, quite rightly, and dealt with it. What their employers have to do—I completely agree that it is much easier for the public
	sector to do this than the private sector—is address their own responsibilities. I agree with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the unions and employees should have a register. Had they had a register, a lot of the issues under discussion would have been addressed a lot earlier.

David Anderson: I take exception to the Minister’s comments. Why should it be easier for public sector employers to do this than private sector employers? They knew the dangers, they knew the risks and they were insured. Why should the way they manage this be any different?

Michael Penning: The hon. Gentleman makes an enormously important point. I can remember being in an asbestos suit not long ago, and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse is a little older than me, and was in the fire service before me. So many lessons can be learned, and they need to be learned, because people have the disease and are suffering.
	I think almost 100 different questions—some were very technical and nearly all of them were very important—have been asked during the debate, and it would be impossible for me to answer them all in the time I have been given. I will therefore write to hon. Members who have spoken, and for the benefit of those who have not taken part I will put the answers in the Library of the House so that everyone has an opportunity to read them.
	I have listened very carefully to the debate, and I have tried not to be party political or partisan in any way, but nobody watching would think that the previous Administration had been in government for 13 years. The issue has been known about for many years and, as I said in my opening speech, Administrations should have dealt with it.
	It is worrying that we have been asked why the Government have taken two years to sort out the problem. The consultation was very wide ranging, and no one would have known from it what the previous Government wanted. I cannot find out exactly what they wanted, because we are not allowed to see their papers. The consultation came out in February 2010, just before the general election, after which we had the purdah period, and then we came into office, and without knowing exactly what was intended, my predecessor and the very dedicated Lord Freud, the Minister in the other House, worked with the Secretary of State to bring forward this Bill.
	Nothing is perfect, and I fully understand that hon. Members on both sides of the House want to table amendments in Committee and probably on Report. What is very important, however, is that the Bill is passed and regulations are laid, and that compensation gets out to the victims of this terrible disease and their loved ones. If even some points that have been discussed were put in, the Bill would have to go back to the Lords and that would mean a period of ping-pong. [Interruption.] I said some, not all points.
	It is absolutely imperative to get the Bill through, or people who have waited for compensation, in some cases for decades, will not get it. If there is ping-pong on the Bill, we will be into the new year—the Leader of the
	House is sitting next to me—and although I will be as open minded and pragmatic as I can, the Bill needs to be put on the statute book.

Stephen Hepburn: What about the 6,000 victims prior to the cut-off date? Why should they be victimised?

Michael Penning: I am good friends with the hon. Gentleman, and I know him well. I do not see it that way, as he knows, but I understand why he does. There has to be an arbitrary cut-off date, and the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said that the date will be arbitrary whatever we do.
	We have been in deep negotiations—there is no argument about that; it will all come out—but the insurance companies did not just stroll up to Lord Freud’s office and say, “By the way, can we do a deal?” They were dragged there, otherwise that would have been done under the previous Administration. The Bill is not perfect and it probably can be amended, but it must not be delayed.

Kevan Jones: I am interested that the Minister says there has to be an arbitrary date. No, there does not; there has to be a date that is justifiable, and the only such date is the 1965 date of knowledge.

Michael Penning: That would be an arbitrary date too, because, as the hon. Gentleman said, mesothelioma was known about before 1965. Whatever happens, if we get bogged down in a legal argument, it will delay the Bill, and the compensation that everyone has worked towards for so many years will be massively and dramatically affected.

Chris Bryant: I am sorry to intervene on the Minister, but he seems to be saying that he will not countenance any amendment to the Bill—despite our having had a debate in which everyone who has spoken has said they want amendments—because such amendments would delay the Bill beyond Christmas. With his timetable, however, I cannot see how he can possibly get it out before Christmas anyway.

Michael Penning: That is the second time the hon. Gentleman has talked about my timetable. The Opposition insisted on three days in Committee; we said they could have less.

Chris Bryant: indicated dissent.

Michael Penning: If the hon. Gentleman talked to his own Whips, he might get some sense. That is exactly what happened.
	At the end of the day, however, some parts of the Bill can be amended without it going back to the Lords. Some parts, particularly on the percentage—[Interruption.] It is for regulations. It is not actually part of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman reads the Bill, he will understand what is going on. He is trying to score party political points on a really serious issue, and he is wrong. We need to ensure that what can be amended, is amended, but I will not have the Bill, and therefore the compensation, delayed. With that, I hope the House will give the Bill a
	Second Reading and that the Opposition will vote for it this evening. It is important that we get the Bill through the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 17 December 2013.
	(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of any message from the Lords) may be programmed.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 267, Noes 202.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MESOTHELIOMA BILL [lords] (money)

Queen’s recommendation signified,
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State.—(Mike Penning.)
	Question agreed to.

mesothelioma Bill [lords] (Ways and means)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the imposition of a levy on active insurers to meet the costs of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

DEFERRED DIVISIONS

Ordered,
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Sajid Javid relating to Financial Services: Benchmark.—(Claire Perry.)

Business without Debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

FINANCIAL SERVICES: BENCHMARK

That this House considers that the draft Regulation on indices used as benchmarks in financial instruments and financial contracts (European Union Document No. 13985/13and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in the Annex to Chapter Five of the Twenty-third Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xxi); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.

Amendment of Standing Orders

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Procedure Committee, Session 2012-13, Review of the Backbench Business Committee, HC 168, and the Government response, Session 2012-13, HC 978.]

Mr Speaker: Before I call Mr Charles Walker to move the first motion, I should inform the House that I have selected the amendments in the name of Mr Andrew Lansley and Mr Tom Brake. The motions will be debated together and the questions necessary to dispose of the amendments will be put at the end of the debate. To move the motion, I call the Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Charles Walker: I beg to move,
	That:
	(1) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 23, at the end, to add ‘and to hear representations from Members of the House in public’;
	(2) Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business) be amended in line 50, at the end, by adding the words ‘Provided that the figure of thirty-five days shall be increased by one day for each week the House shall sit in a session in excess of a year’;
	(3) the following new Standing Order be made:
	‘Allocation of time to backbench business
	(1) Where proceedings to be taken as backbench business have been determined by the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), a motion may be made on behalf of that Committee at the commencement of those proceedings by the chair or another member of the committee allocating time to the proceedings; and the question on any such motion shall be put forthwith.
	(2) A motion under paragraph (1)–
	(a) shall be in the terms of a resolution of the Backbench Business Committee reported to the House in accordance with paragraph (9) of Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee);
	(b) may not provide for any proceedings to be taken after the expiration of the time for opposed business other than the decisions on any questions necessary to dispose of the backbench business, such questions to include the questions on any amendment selected by the Speaker which may then be moved.
	(c) may provide that Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the backbench business.’
	(4) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 42, at the end, by adding the words:
	‘(9) The Committee shall report to the House any resolution which it makes about the allocation of time to proceedings to be taken as backbench business on a day allotted under paragraph (4) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business), provided that such a resolution is agreed without a division.’

Mr Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	That the following new Standing Order be made:
	‘Select Committee Statements
	(1) (a) On any day allotted for proceedings in the House on backbench business (and not being taken in the form of a half-day), or on any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall other than one to which sub-paragraph (b) applies, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.
	(b) The Liaison Committee may determine that such a statement may be made in Westminster Hall on any day appointed under paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).
	(2) A statement on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry–
	(a) shall be made by the chair or another member of the select committee acting on its behalf;
	(b) shall take place–
	(i) in the House, after questions and any ministerial statements, or
	(ii) in Westminster Hall, at the commencement of proceedings.
	(3) A statement made under paragraph (1) above may not take place later than 5 sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced.
	(4) The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.’.

Charles Walker: The first of the Procedure Committee’s recommendations has been accepted by the Government—let us start on a positive note—as it is uncontentious and simply formalises the current practice of the Backbench Business Committee taking representations in public. I think all colleagues will agree that that fantastic occasion on Tuesday is well attended and extremely exciting. It portrays and presents Parliament at its absolute best. I know you share that view, Mr Speaker, if I may be so presumptuous as to involve you in this debate.
	Our second suggestion does not meet with quite so much favour from the Government Front-Bench team—nor, I am sad to say, from the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee—but I thought that for the sake of debate I would expand on the Procedure Committee’s view on this matter. I should say at this early stage that I do not want to keep colleagues here until the small hours of the morning, so it is unlikely that I will put this to the vote tonight. Perhaps I have shown my hand too early, but I know colleagues have important things to be getting on with in their offices.
	This second suggestion, which is opposed by the Government, is to amend Standing Order No. 40, so that it allows for 35 days of backbench business per Session or, when the Session is longer, a pro rata increase of one day per each additional week. It is possible to imagine a scenario after the general election when the incoming Government—whether it be the current coalition, a Conservative Government or, dare I say it, possibly a Labour Government—might decide that their business agenda is so expansive that it requires two years to put it into place. The Procedure Committee thus thought it would be helpful—nay, necessary—for the number of days given by the Government to be commensurate with the additional number of weeks for which that first Parliament ran.
	The Front-Benchers have assured me—these assurances are taken at face value by the Chairman of the Backbench Committee—that I need not worry about these things, and that if there were additional weeks and Parliament lasted for more than the standard 35 weeks in the year, the Government would find it within their favour to provide some additional days.

Philip Hollobone: Do not the facts paint a very different picture? In the first part of this Parliament, when the first Session ran for two years, there were not the requisite number of days for the Backbench Business Committee as there should have been. These assurances, I would suggest, are completely worthless.

Charles Walker: In an ideal world, the Standing Order would be amended to ensure—so that there was no wriggle room—that the additional days would be provided, but at this point I do not feel that the House is with me. This is an argument in gestation, and we need to allow it longer in the womb before it bursts forth in its full glory.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of our Procedure Committee. Does he agree that if the Government were to accept the motion—and I appreciate that they are reluctant to do so—there would be no reason for the Backbench Business Committee, in its present or a future incarnation, not to refuse to accept the extra day if it were offered, on a case-by-case basis?

Charles Walker: The Backbench Business Committee is known for its independence of thought. I rather agree with my hon. Friend, who is a stalwart of the Procedure Committee and one of its leading lights. Once again, he has made an incisive contribution.
	Because we do not have all night, I am now going to make a little progress. We also propose a new Standing Order—again, resisted by the Government—allowing the Backbench Business Committee to organise its own time through a motion proposed at the commencement of one of its days of business, regulating the business that follows. Such a change would enable the Committee to make provision for decisions on a series of motions and amendments to those motions to be taken together at the end of a debate, at the normal moment of interruption or before.
	I shall canter through the next part of my speech. I shall have to read it, because it is quite complex, and I would not want to make a deliberate or unnecessary mistake. Let me give two examples in which that power might have been useful. In the case of recent debates on the sitting hours of the House, the need to take a complex series of votes before the usual time of interruption required the sacrifice of an hour and a half of debating time. The debate on assisted dying, which was scheduled to last an hour and a half, had to be voluntarily stopped 20 minutes early so that the first amendment could be put and voted on, in order to allow a second vote to be taken before the 7 pm deadline. The power might also provide for a timetable for decisions to be made on a series of separate motions at fixed points, or for a day simply to be divided between two or three debates. That would be entirely convenient to the House because it would make everything reasonably predictable.
	In anticipation of resistance from the Government, the Committee has proposed a fairly formidable set of constraints on the use of the power, which I shall set out now. I can see that the House is waiting with bated breath to hear about this series of protections.
	First, the decision to use the power must be a unanimous decision by the Committee, made, obviously, at a quorate meeting with due notice given. Secondly, the Committee—
	unlike the Government—is given no power to stretch a day, except in so far as Divisions might run past the normal moment of interruption. It cannot extend the length of a sitting on Thursday. Thirdly, and most importantly, the House would be free to disagree with any proposal made by the Committee at the start of the day to which it applied. The proposal would be put without debate, but could be divided on and defeated. If the House did not like it, the House could reject it.
	So there is no possibility, in a perfect world—the world that I would like to see become a reality, although it is not going to become a reality tonight—of the Backbench Business Committee’s abusing its power to force the House to make unpalatable decisions in an unpalatable way. The whole Committee, and the whole House, must want the business to which this power might be applied to be conducted in a rational and predictable way. It is not applicable to anything other than Back-Bench business: it cannot affect Government business, Opposition business, or private Members’ Bills.
	I appreciate that there is resistance to this. There are many here who feel that the Government, motivated by good will, would want to ensure whenever possible that the Backbench Business Committee was able to achieve its objectives, and that there would be helpful Whips supporting them in the process. This is where I diverge slightly from the view of my opposite number, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), who chairs the Backbench Business Committee. This is a point of principle and the—slow—direction of travel at the moment is for this House to take back more powers for itself. It was the case about 110 years ago that if the Government of the day wanted to transact their business in this place, they had to come and seek our permission. Over the past 110 years we have given up successive powers through Standing Orders so now we are in the position of begging the Government for time, or relying on the good will of Government to give us that time.
	This is what I suggest: I am not going to press the House to a Division tonight, so the amendments put down by the Government will carry the day, but I am convinced that the day is coming—slowly—when this House will have the courage and desire to take back some of its own power and we will have the self-confidence not to rely on the Whips to transact our business for us on those days when it is our business. I accept that there will be Government days for business, and that is fine, but I think that on those days when there is Back-Bench business—those days when it is our business, when this place comes back to us—in a few years’ time we will have the self-confidence and courage to say, “Actually, we can handle our own affairs in a grown-up, mature and successful fashion.”

Helen Goodman: rose—

Charles Walker: Before I sit down, I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Helen Goodman: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Procedure Committee for giving way. Surely what we are talking about here is the House growing up and our being treated like grown-ups—being able to vote as well as debate? I therefore wonder why the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—who chairs it absolutely marvellously—is not going to press the House to a Division this evening.

Charles Walker: I shall answer the hon. Lady in an honest way: quite frankly, I have been here since 10 o’clock this morning, and I have toured the Tea Rooms and I have toured the Library and all the other places where Members of Parliament work diligently through the day, and I do not feel that I have the support to carry the day, so it is better to live to take the fight to another day than to die on this day. I appreciate that that is a slightly over-dramatic statement of the position, but why not, because it is late and I have had far too much coffee?
	I really now think it is time that I sat down and allowed others to participate in this important debate, because we have literally hundreds of colleagues here champing at the bit.

Natascha Engel: It is, as always, a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), who has made some very arcane points, which were more entertaining than I could ever have imagined them to be. My disagreements with him are about bringing more powers to the House and what we do with those powers, rather than in judging what he has tabled in all good spirit against the Government’s wishes. I thank him and the Procedure Committee, and the previous Chair of the Committee, who undertook the review of the Backbench Business Committee. The Committee had been in existence for only one Session when it was reviewed and was therefore very much in its infancy. The report recognised an important truth about the Committee: it is a Select Committee in name only, and completely different from any other Committee of the House in what it does.
	When the Backbench Business Committee was established, it was governed by a very basic set of Standing Orders. They said how many members there should be and the party make-up. They also said how many days Government were to allocate to us, and that we could not table any motions that affected the workings of the Committee, which was perfectly sensible. That was it—the day-to-day working and functioning of the Committee were not mentioned in Standing Orders.
	When we started, there was nothing to stop the eight members of the Backbench Business Committee meeting in private session and deciding for ourselves what would be debated by our colleagues on one day every parliamentary week. Therefore, the very first founding principles we established were to ensure that any debate we scheduled came from our colleagues—came from ideas from other Back Benchers—and that we met in public so that everything we decided was open and transparent. These were very important founding principles.
	We set some other founding principles, together with our excellent first Clerk, Andrew Kennon, one of which was that the Backbench Business Committee should take as many risks as possible as soon as possible, in order to see what worked and what did not. One of the risks we took, when the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) was a member of the Committee, was a new way of doing pre-recess Adjournment debates. That got mixed reviews and we have chopped and changed that around, but one of the more successful innovations, which is mentioned on the Order Paper, was enabling Select Committee Chairs to launch their reports on the Floor of the House. Interestingly, that
	did not work in quite the way we wanted it to. They used to have to do it by taking interventions from Members, without being able to stand up like Ministers and take questions from the Floor. We felt that that really required a change to the Standing Orders, and we welcome the motion on the Order Paper today in the name of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who chairs the Liaison Committee.

Alan Beith: I welcome the hon. Lady’s and the Government’s support for this change. It has involved some discussion and there is an element of compromise about it, but it will be a much better procedure that will enable a Chair to table a report within five days of the Committee issuing it, and to take questions, rather than going through the contrived process of interventions that we have now.

Natascha Engel: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
	We also wanted to keep to the principle of having as few rules as possible governing the Backbench Business Committee, in order to allow Back Benchers themselves to decide what they want to do within their own allocated time. Although we congratulate the hon. Member for Broxbourne on the paragraph in his motion that deals with allowing us to meet in public and to take representations from Members—as he said, it simply formalises current practice—we disagree with the points made in the following paragraphs. The honourable exception to that is the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), who is a member of both the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee, and supports these changes. We are concerned that these changes impose rigorous rules on us that might have negative consequences. We have enjoyed the freedom resulting from there being no rules governing what we could and could not do.
	The first point on which we really disagreed was the allocating of our time pro rata. At the moment, as the hon. Member for Broxbourne said, the Backbench Business Committee is allocated 35 days a Session. As he also pointed out, the first Session stretched to almost two calendar years. We demanded, quite vocally, that the Government extend our allocation of time pro rata, and they did. There was a slight dispute over one or two days that the Government had scheduled before we came into existence, but broadly, the arrangement worked very well.
	At the moment, the 35-day allocation is a minimum; the Government are perfectly free to allocate us more than that. My worry is that if pro rata-ing is imposed, there is nothing to say that this allocation will become a fixed amount of time. By the same token, if a Session is shorter than a calendar year, there is nothing to say that the Government could not then pro rata downwards. As the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, I would not want that to happen. Given that the arrangement only happened because of the introduction of fixed-term Parliaments, for which we were compensating, and given that we now have fixed-term Parliaments, it is highly unlikely that this situation will ever arise again. I just do not think it is worth taking the risk of an unforeseen consequence.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her speech, which I am listening to closely. Let us say there were a change of Government, and a Labour Government decided to do the same thing and have an initial Session over two calendar years, the then Leader of the House and the then Chief Whip might not be as amenable as the current ones, and if so, without the change to the Standing Order, her words would ring very hollow indeed.

Natascha Engel: The hon. Gentleman was present when we produced our first provisional report, and all I would say is that one of our founding principles was that we should consider changing rules as and when we found a problem. There was not a problem in that first Session. However, if there is a problem in the future, I will personally lead the charge to ensure that we change the rules in order to accommodate and rectify it.

Philip Hollobone: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Lady, but there was a problem. She had to get up on her feet every week during questions to the Leader of the House and beg for the Backbench Business Committee to be given time. In the end, that begging worked, but there was a problem and it was only her active intervention that solved it.

Natascha Engel: I would say that I was assertively, or even aggressively, demanding rather than begging. The Government eventually realised that they had no option but to pro rata the days, because there would have been uproar if they had not done so.
	That brings me to my next point. As has been said, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Richard Ottaway) mentioned his debate on assisted dying in his submission to the Procedure Committee. A full day of debate was allocated. It was considerably longer than an hour and a half, but it is true that there would have been another 20 minutes of debate and that votes would have taken place at the end of the day. However, that problem was identified only in retrospect, so even if we had had the power to timetable a business motion, it would not have happened on that day.
	I am concerned that the proposal could have unintended consequences. One of the things that I have witnessed working really well in Back-Bench debates is that, at the moment, Back Benchers control their own time by having flexibility. We are therefore able to respond to events such as urgent questions, statements and whatever else might happen in the House on the day. Unlike in debates in Government time, it is extraordinary how Back Benchers are aware and respectful of any subsequent debates and of the number of Members who have put their name down to speak. When time limits are imposed, Members take less time in order to allow others into the debate and to shorten the debate in order to allow the following debate enough time to be heard. We all know that, if we started to timetable our debates, that would no longer happen. When debates are timetabled, we fill that time. We go to the limit of the time that is permitted. That would take away something from the Backbench Business Committee that is working extremely well and that makes Back-Bench debates flexible.
	The proposals could make the situation worse, which is why I oppose them. At the same time, I welcome the spirit in which the report was written and in which the motions were tabled by the Procedure Committee.
	I take nothing away from any of that. I ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne to leave the door open so that, if I am wrong and there are problems of this nature in the future, we will be able to return to the Procedure Committee and ask it to table motions for us to help us out. I would appreciate that enormously. I am glad that he has said he will not press these matters to a vote today, because our two Committees work very well together to represent the best interests of the wide variety of Back Benchers in this House. I am therefore grateful that he has taken such a conciliatory attitude this evening.

John Hemming: I am in the unusual position of having divided loyalties, being a member of the Procedure Committee and of the Backbench Business Committee. In this instance, however, I support the Procedure Committee, because I wish to see more power for Parliament and less for the Executive.
	I do not think that the question of the number of days per year is a massive issue of principle. If a Parliament were to have a forced caesarean, which none of us would want to see, rather than its normal gestation period, a reduction in the number of days would not be a big issue. It is entirely reasonable to have a system in Standing Orders that means that if Parliament goes on for a longer period, there is no need to come to say, “We need more time” and it is automatically delivered. That is a fair way of working. It is not a big issue of principle.
	The second matter involves more of an issue of principle. The point is simple: why do only the Executive have the power to timetable Parliament and Parliament cannot timetable itself? Let us consider the changes that have happened since the Wright report. The first change meant that the Backbench Business Committee was accountable not to Parliament as a whole, but to the political groups—again, that increased the power of the Executive. Our proposal is to give the Backbench Business Committee a power—if it does not work, it does not have to be used—that is currently held only by the Executive. That is an important step forward, and it would give Parliament a power that it currently does not have.

James Gray: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he not struck by the argument put forward by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) a moment ago—if there is a timetable and a time by which the debate must end, that will become not the terminus ad quem, but something towards which we work? We will fill the time up to that point. She made a particularly good point.

John Hemming: The hon. Lady made a good point if we exercise the power. The idea is not that every debate should be timetabled; it is that the Committee should have this power. Her argument was that perhaps that power might be needed in the future, but we could give the Committee that power to use if it sees fit. Instead she recommends that the discretion should not be there. In the interests of democracy and of increasing the power of the representatives of the people—Parliament—and reducing the power of the Executive, that power should be given to the Committee and not just limited to the Executive.

Natascha Engel: That was not quite what I said. I said that if we were given the power, Members would demand it. I am worried that if we are given the power, that is what Members will constantly want and then the time will become filled to the timetable rather than by what is needed.

John Hemming: Members will only want it if they see a need for it. The Committee will have discretion over whether to give that power. As I said, this issue comes down to where someone sees the power resting between the Executive and the legislature. My view is that democracy is important and that we should give power to the legislature.

Philip Hollobone: I congratulate the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), on the way in which he opened this debate, and the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), on the way in which she responded.
	If any Members present are regretting this debate taking place, they have only themselves to blame, because the House in its order of 26 November said that this motion should be debated for 90 minutes at the close of play today. Members should have objected to that at the time if they disagreed. The Chairman of the Procedure Committee says that he will not press the motion to a vote, so does he intend to withdraw it rather than just concede defeat to the Government amendments?

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend has identified my own weaknesses in matters of procedure. My understanding is that I will allow the Government amendments to go forward unchallenged, because Mr Speaker’s intention was to put the amendments to the House. If I am wrong about that, I apologise, and my hon. Friend has exposed me as a charlatan and a fraud as Chairman of the Procedure Committee.

Philip Hollobone: I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend is not a charlatan and a fraud.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer even to himself, who is by virtue an honourable Member, as a charlatan and a fraud?

Mr Speaker: It is not disorderly, but it is an example of unwarranted self-flagellation.

Philip Hollobone: I know for a certain fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne is not a charlatan and a fraud. I very much hope that he withdraws his motion, because then the Government amendments could not be passed.

John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman made the point just before accepting my intervention: if the motion is withdrawn, the Government amendments cannot be passed. However, then we would not have any changes at all. It is a question for the House as to whether the House divides; it is not a question for the Chairman of a particular Committee.

Philip Hollobone: I strongly encourage my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne to withdraw his motion at the appropriate point and to come back to this matter on another day.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: As I understand it, Mr Speaker, for a motion to be withdrawn, it requires the consent of the whole House, and one Member opposing it can stop that withdrawal taking place. It is too late for my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, to withdraw his motion.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman’s understanding is correct. The motion is now owned by the House, and withdrawal of it would require the assent of the House. It cannot be summarily withdrawn.

Philip Hollobone: In that case, I encourage my hon. Friend to seek the leave of the House to withdraw the motion. I gently say to him and to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that if ever the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee come to the Floor of the House divided on an issue, they are effectively allowing the Executive to walk all over both of them, which is a great shame as far as the whole House is concerned.
	I disagree with the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire about her worries over the 35 days. I simply do not trust the Executive, whoever they might be, to honour their commitment to give 35 days to the Backbench Business Committee. There might be all sorts of excuses that a re-elected coalition Government, a majority Conservative Government or indeed a Labour Government might give to the House about not sticking to that ruling. In a Session longer than a calendar year, it would be very tempting, especially for an incoming Government, to seek not to give a pro rata adjustment to the Backbench Business Committee’s allocation of time.
	We have not spoken very much about the Select Committee statements motion, but I have some concerns about how it has been drafted. It says in paragraph (1)(a) of the proposed Standing Order that
	“the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.”
	It does not make it clear that the Committee would do that only in response to a request from the relevant Select Committee. As I read that proposed Standing Order, the Backbench Business Committee could force a Select Committee to make a statement on the publication of one of its reports. I am sure that that is not the intention of the Backbench Business Committee for all the reasons that the hon. Lady outlined about its not seeking to become more powerful than it should be, but the way that the motion is drafted would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to do that, although I am sure it is not requesting it.
	In paragraph (4) of the Select Committee statements motion, it says, in relation to the time given to such a statement, that
	“no question”—
	on the statement—
	“shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”
	I do not agree with that, Mr Speaker. When we have statements on the Floor of the House from Ministers, you, through your wisdom, decide how long that statement should run, and you do that by seeing how many Members of the House are standing to ask questions. Sometimes those statement do not include all the Members who want to ask questions; sometimes they run for a very long time indeed. The point is that the allocation of time is not specified beforehand. It is in your wisdom and at your discretion how long a statement should last. If, under the proposed procedure, the Backbench Business Committee allows a statement on a Select Committee publication to take place, either in this Chamber or in Westminster Hall, it should be up to Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speaker or the Chairman in Westminster Hall to decide how long that statement should run depending on the level of interest in it shown by those Members who are standing to ask questions. I am disappointed in the rather sloppy wording of the Select Committee statements motion. The point about how long statements should run has been missed, and I am very worried that if we have an extended Session of Parliament the Government will not necessarily provide the pro rata entitlement to the Backbench Business Committee that this House would like.

David Nuttall: I do not intend to go through the motions again, because the House has already heard about them in detail, but I want to place on record that it was not the intention of the Procedure Committee to fall out in any way with the Backbench Business Committee. If the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) does not mind my saying so, we were only trying to be helpful. In many ways, it is a sadness and a disappointment that our attempt to be helpful has resulted in a debate that might appear to an onlooker to be a dispute between the two Committees. That certainly was not the intention of the Procedure Committee and, to be fair to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), I am sure that with his two hats on he would have made it clear if he thought that we were going down the wrong track. These are permissive powers, but I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady's arguments and they have some merit. If at any point in the future the hon. Lady and her Committee feel that the Procedure Committee can be helpful by introducing some changes, I for one would be amenable to suggesting that we gave that request careful consideration.
	I have just listened carefully to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and to his concerns about the proposed new Standing Order on Select Committee statements. I am inclined to agree that paragraph (1)(a) suggests that the Backbench Business Committee would have the authority to demand a statement and I wonder whether, even at this late stage, we might receive from the Leader of the House an oral clarification or even a manuscript amendment with which the whole House could agree that would put the words “if requested” after the words “may determine” in line 4. That might deal with that concern.
	Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering raised a concern about paragraph (4), which states:
	“The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall
	be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.”
	When I read that the first time, I wondered whether it meant that there would be no vote on the statement as no question would be put to the House. I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that hon. Members on both sides of the House would expect that the sensible convention that has grown up under your chairmanship and since I have been a Member of this House, Mr Speaker, that as many Members as possible given the circumstances are allowed to question a Minister—or, in this case, the Chairman of a Select Committee—after a statement has been made should continue if at all possible.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, who have tabled these motions. I thoroughly support the changes to the arrangements for Select Committee statements in this House and in Westminster Hall. They will be much more practical, there will be much more discipline and flexibility and Select Committees will be able to make far more statements about the reports we produce, which can only be good for the profile of Select Committees and for understanding in the House of the work that Select Committees do.
	On the other matter before us, it pains me that the most reasonable and sensible proposals that are brought forward—for example, on the House’s ability to manage its time in its own way—are still rejected by the Government. I will be very interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House says about that. When it comes to any proposal that started with the Wright Committee, getting people to accept reform has been like pulling teeth. We have come so far from the days when the House really controlled its own time.
	The principle of the Wright Committee was that the Government are entitled to be able to obtain their business. I do not know why the Government have to micro-manage the time of the House to such an extent when there is no threat to their ability to obtain their business. So capable are modern Governments of obtaining their business that the House sits shorter days than at any time since before the first world war. The idea that the House sits for too many hours, or too late into the night, or that debates go on for too long, is an absolute travesty. We now have so many timed and curtailed debates, and so many truncated speeches. [Interruption.] I make no apology for provoking my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House into pointing at the clock, because it is rare for us to debate something that is important to the House, rather than the Government.
	The authors of the Government amendments are standing against the tide of history. The British people want the House to have more, not less, power. They want more, not less, accountability. This is a tiny change to enable the House to ensure that things are debated in good time and in good order. I am interested to know the arguments against the proposals, which were unanimously supported by the Procedure Committee. I rather suspect that on both Front Benches, there is something of a reflex action against the Backbench Business Committee obtaining more discretion and influence over the way in which the House is run.

James Gray: Does my hon. Friend feel that this evening’s activities bode well for the oft-promised introduction of a House business Committee?

Bernard Jenkin: I suspect that if I moved on to the question of the introduction of a House business Committee, Mr Speaker, you might begin to twitch and suggest that I was straying beyond the remit of the motions before us. I see absolutely no sign that the Government will fulfil their commitment, written into the coalition agreement, that after three years, a House business Committee would be established. Perhaps the Front Benchers could say today when they plan to table motions to do that.
	It is worth reminding hon. Members that we in this House have no power to lay a motion before the House to change Standing Orders. We are entirely dependent on the Front Benchers’ beneficence in tabling motions to make such changes. That power was lost much more recently than people imagine; I cannot remember the exact date, but it was long after the beginning of the timetabling of business at the time of the Home Rule debates in the 19th century.

Philip Hollobone: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. Indeed, item 21 in today’s Order Paper is a helpful list of adjournment dates for the House going all the way through to the end of 2014, but it is an item about which there is no debate allowed whatever. It has been put on the Order Paper by the Executive, and the House is not even allowed to debate it.

Bernard Jenkin: I have some sympathy with the idea that we do not debate everything that is on the Order Paper, because there is so much on a modern Order Paper that we would be here 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, if we did. However, it should be for this House to decide what is debated and what is important. It should not be stitched up between the two Front-Bench teams, or laid down by the Government of the day. We respect and fully understand the principle that any Government must be able to obtain their business, but the ability to manipulate the Order Paper in their interests is surely not right for a modern Parliament in a modern democracy in which people expect more accountability and more debate on important matters.
	Finally, I counsel my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, in whose name the motion stands, that he would be well within his rights to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. The Backbench Business Committee will continue to sit in public regardless of whether or not a Standing Order requires it to do so. This exercise has therefore become rather otiose, because of the Government’s amendments. If he begs to ask leave to withdraw the motion, I think that he will be making the point that the Government have made this exercise rather pointless.

Angela Smith: I rise to support the motion on Select Committee statements and to offer our support to the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), in relation to the amendments to the motion that was tabled by the Chair of the Procedure Committee, the hon. Member
	for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), which stand in the names of the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House.
	I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxbourne for opening the debate and explaining his thinking behind the motion. He is a treasured Member of the House and a staunch defender of Back-Bench Members’ rights. He is deeply respected by all Members. On this occasion, however, I am afraid that, despite his erudite explanation of the rationale behind his amendments, we are unable to support them in their entirety, for reasons I will lay before the House shortly.
	Before that, I want to acknowledge the Backbench Business Committee, an innovation that arose from the Wright Committee reforms, which has enjoyed a great deal of success since its initiation in 2010. That success has been in no small part due to the tireless work of its Chair and her open-minded approach to the selection of topics to be debated.
	Another success of the Wright reforms has been the election of members of Select Committees and their Chairs. There is no doubt that the work of Select Committees has been given more credibility as a consequence of those reforms. How often now do we see the broadcast media giving priority to the coverage of Select Committee hearings? Who can doubt that the Public Accounts Committee, under the steely leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), is now seen as a really effective way of holding public services to account for the resources they spend on our behalf.
	The changes to Standing Orders recommended in the motion are the next logical step in the process of improving the workings of the House and raising further the profile of the work of our Select Committees. There is no doubt that the present system of allowing Select Committee Chairs to make a statement to the House is cumbersome and that the proposed change to the Standing Orders will make it easier for Members of the House to draw out areas of interest in a Select Committee report by asking the relevant question, rather than by having to intervene. Interventions are good for the cut and thrust of a full-blooded debate, but in our view they are not the most appropriate mechanism for handling what is in effect a statement to the House by a Select Committee.
	The proposed new Standing Order will also give the Backbench Business Committee discretion in allocating a specified period of time for a Select Committee statement. The same discretion will be made available to the Liaison Committee in relation to debates in Westminster Hall.
	With regard to the amendments to the motion relating to Back-Bench business, we support the first change proposed by the hon. Member for Broxbourne, which would give the Backbench Business Committee the formal power to hear representations from Members of the House in public. My understanding is that that has become the norm. Indeed, I have been present when Members have made representations. I know, because I have seen it myself, that it really works, in the sense that it reflects entirely the slow but welcome progress to ever-greater transparency in this place. It would therefore be helpful to see that practice written into Standing Orders. However, we join the Chair of the Committee and the Leader of the House in opposing a formal
	writing into Standing Orders of the principle of extending the number of days made available for Back-Bench business when the parliamentary Session extends beyond the usual year. This did not prove to be an issue in the first Session of this Parliament, which went on for what seemed like an almost interminable two years. We agree that that is unlikely to occur again given the legislation on fixed-term Parliaments that is now on the statute book.
	We disagree with the part of the motion that would give the Backbench Business Committee the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee believes that it is important that it should not have the power to table programme motions. Back-Bench business days have always been more flexible and the time has generally been split on the day depending on the number of speakers for debates. This means that Members regulate themselves and almost always have respectful regard for subsequent debates. Her fear, as she clearly articulated, is that if the Committee were to start programming, debates would fill the space they are allocated rather than the space they need.

Philip Hollobone: Does the hon. Lady appreciate the dichotomy in her argument in that she is in favour of flexibility with regard to debates on the Floor of the House but not with regard to how long statements should run in Back-Bench time?

Angela Smith: The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee pointed out that for the greater part of the time Back-Bench business works on a consensual basis. I think she would want that spirit to be reflected in future arrangements rather than having written into Standing Orders a procedure that is unwieldy and may, in effect, start to distort the nature of the business that takes place on these days, which are typically sitting Thursdays.
	We agree with this way of continuing Back-Bench business and encourage Members of the House to support the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the amendments. Of course, it is up to right hon. and hon. Members to make up their own minds on these changes, but I hope they can be guided by the Committee on these important matters. I am pleased that the Chair of the Procedure Committee has acquiesced in that view. On that basis, I hope that the House will agree to allow the amendments to stand.

Tom Brake: I rise to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the motion relating to Select Committee statements and to speak to the motion on Back-Bench business moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to which I will wish to move the amendments standing in my name and that of the Leader of the House. I thank him for opening the debate as he did and for clearly setting out the effect of and the thinking behind his motion and for explaining that his moment has not come as the Tea Room was deathly silent in pledging support for it.
	I agree with the first paragraph of the motion on providing the Backbench Business Committee with the formal power to hear representations from Members of
	the House in public. As my hon. Friend explained, this merely brings Standing Orders into line with the Committee’s existing practice. As a regular attender of its public meetings, I can say that they work very well. It is a real advance in this House for Back-Bench Members to be able to bid directly and openly for time to debate subjects of their choosing.
	Turning to the rest of the motion, the House will be aware from the Backbench Business Committee’s evidence to the Procedure Committee and the Government’s response to that Committee’s report that we both oppose the proposals for a pro-rata increase in the number of days allocated to the Backbench Business Committee in a parliamentary Session lasting longer than a calendar year and for the Committee to have the power to table business motions. We have tabled amendments to remove these provisions, in support of the Committee’s stated views.
	I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the Chair of the Procedure Committee. While I understand the rationale behind the proposals, I do not believe that either is necessary. The first arose partly as a result of the unusually long first Session of this Parliament. We have now passed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which ties us, other than in exceptional circumstances, to five-year Parliaments with an election in early May. As a result, a spring-to-spring one-year Session should be the norm, and I do not expect a repeat of the two year Session. If there is one—one can never rule it out—or if a Session extends slightly beyond one year, I assure the House that business managers will take account of the interests of the Backbench Business Committee and the House to ensure a balanced spread of business.
	In fact, that is what happened during that long first Session. The Government did not seek to stick to the Standing Order requirement of 35 days, but allocated the Backbench Business Committee 58 days, which was—contrary to the point made by the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—well above what a simple pro rata increase would have delivered. Members may recall that it took several weeks at the start of the Session for the Backbench Business Committee to become established, during which time the Government provided time for debates that would otherwise have come from their allocation. That demonstrates, as the Chair of the Committee has said, that an element of flexibility is helpful to the House in the unlikely event of future long Sessions.
	I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will be able to accept those arguments and the Government amendment. Indeed, he has indicated as much. Should it come to a vote—although I understand that that will not be the case—I hope the House will support our position and that of the Backbench Business Committee and vote in favour of amendment (a), to leave out paragraph (2) of the motion.
	On amendment (b) and business motions, I understand the case made by my hon. Friend but, again, the Government do not believe it is necessary to provide the Backbench Business Committee with the power to table business motions governing Back-Bench business days. There is already flexibility for the Committee to indicate on the Order Paper the amount of time it expects each debate to take. In these circumstances, as the Committee Chair has said, Members are generally very good at exercising restraint when necessary and respecting the
	interests of others wishing to speak in subsequent debates. The occupant of the Speaker’s Chair is also able to encourage Members to lengthen or shorten their speeches or even to impose formal time limits, having regard to the interest shown by Members in contributing to debates. That arrangement has worked very well. It provides maximum discretion for the Backbench Business Committee to organise the business as it sees fit and avoids the rigidity of a business motion.
	The House may recall that there have been occasions nearer the start of the Parliament when the Government have provided a business motion at the request of the Procedure Committee and the Backbench Business Committee. It is also true that this Government have never refused a request for a business motion from either Committee. Furthermore, I can assure the House that we will continue to respond positively to similar requests from both Committees in the future.

Bernard Jenkin: Has not my right hon. Friend defeated his own argument? If that is always going to be the case, why not let the Backbench Business Committee table the motions itself instead of having to ask his permission? Why does the Backbench Business Committee need to ask the Government’s permission for a business motion?

Tom Brake: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He has heard from the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee why she is not seeking that power. The risk is that if it were available, Members would start to exercise it, which would do away with the flexibility she has said is such an advantage to the Committee.
	The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee has already said in evidence to the inquiry that she does not think the power is necessary and she cannot see the problem. I agree with her. Again, I hope that, given my assurances and the views of the Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne will accept the Government’s amendment—for the moment at least—until things move further and more quickly in the direction he seeks.
	I will now turn to Select Committee launches and the motion standing in my name and those of the Leader of the House and the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees. The motion provides for a new Standing Order governing the procedure relating to Select Committee statements. The Procedure Committee, in its second report of Session 2012-13, supported a new Standing Order for that purpose, an idea proposed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip when he was Leader of the House. I am sure he will be pleased that his good ideas continue to come to fruition.
	Before briefly describing the effect of the motion, I would like to add that it has been tabled on the basis of much negotiation and discussion. I am grateful to the Chairs of the Liaison and the Backbench Business Committees for adding their names to the motion, signifying the degree of consensus achieved on it.
	The Government agree that the present procedure, under which Members may contribute to the short debate by way of intervention only, is rather cumbersome. The launch of a Select Committee inquiry or report is more akin to a ministerial statement than a debate. It therefore makes sense for Members to be able to ask questions of the Member making the statement, rather
	than by seeking to intervene during a single speech. That will prove a more natural and convenient way of proceeding.
	The proposed new Standing Order gives the Backbench Business Committee full discretion in allocating a specified amount of time to Select Committee statements, which can be set down on any of its allocated days. The Liaison Committee will enjoy a similar discretion in respect of its allocated days in Westminster Hall.
	I want to respond to two points made by the hon. Member for Kettering. First, I want to reassure him that paragraph (1)(a) assumes that an application has been made by a Select Committee to the Backbench Business Committee for a statement, so the Backbench Business Committee cannot require one. I hope that he is reassured that the Backbench Business Committee will not force Select Committees to make statements that they do not intend to make.
	Secondly, Select Committee launches can last any period determined by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee, but they are not obliged to specify a time, and if they do not do so, the launch would be open-ended, and there would not be the constraining mechanism about which the hon. Gentleman expressed concern.
	It is important that the House remains able to respond rapidly to new developments so as to be at the centre of political debate. That is why I believe that any Select Committee statements should be made no later than five sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced, as provided in the Standing Order. I encourage Select Committees, wherever possible, to continue the current practice of launching reports on the day of publication.
	The Select Committee statement provides Select Committees with an excellent opportunity to publicise their work either by launching their inquiries—that practice has found favour in the Scottish Parliament, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House found when he visited—or by explaining the contents of their reports to the House.
	So far, 13 Committees have made a total of 14 statements. Committees now have the chance to ensure that their work becomes a staple feature of Back-Bench business, although they will have to compete with many other demands for time. No doubt Committees will wish to review how the new arrangements work in due course.
	I hope that the House will find that the new Standing Order provides an improved procedure for this innovation. I welcome the support of the deputy shadow Leader of the House and that of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee on a common position with the Government on these issues this evening. I hope that the House will support that motion when I move it.

Charles Walker: This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate. I have learned a lot of procedure during its course, and it is good to know that, no matter how inexperienced we are, we can always become more experienced by listening to the wisdom of colleagues. If this is possible and acceptable to the House, I would ask to withdraw the motion on Back-Bench business—I understand that that is acceptable to the Chair of the
	Backbench Business Committee—while of course leaving the motion on Select Committee statements alone. I have nothing further to add, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr Speaker: Permission has been refused. [Interruption.] One objection alone suffices, although I think I heard more than one. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) has been gesticulating as to the source of the objection, but that is not a matter of order for the Chair. We now come to the amendments to the motion, which remains the property of the House.
	Amendments made: (a), leave out paragraph (2).
	Amendment (b), leave out paragraphs (3) and (4).—(Tom Brake.)
	Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That:
	(1) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) be amended in line 23, at the end, to add ‘and to hear representations from Members of the House in public’.

Select committee Statements

Ordered,
	That the following new Standing Order be made:
	‘Select Committee Statements
	(1) (a) On any day allotted for proceedings in the House on backbench business (and not being taken in the form of a half-day), or on any Thursday sitting in Westminster Hall other than one to which sub-paragraph (b) applies, the Backbench Business Committee may determine that a statement will be made on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry.
	(b) The Liaison Committee may determine that such a statement may be made in Westminster Hall on any day appointed under paragraph (15) of Standing Order No. 10 (Sittings in Westminster Hall).
	(2) A statement on the publication of a select committee report or announcement of an inquiry–
	(a) shall be made by the chair or another member of the select committee acting on
	its behalf;
	(b) shall take place–
	(i) in the House, after questions and any ministerial statements, or
	(ii) in Westminster Hall, at the commencement of proceedings.
	(3) A statement made under paragraph (1) above may not take place later than 5 sitting days after the day on which the report is published or inquiry announced.
	(4) The Member making a statement may answer questions on it asked by Members called by the Chair, but no question shall be taken after the end of any period specified by the Backbench Business Committee or the Liaison Committee in its determination.’. —(Tom Brake.)

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Mr Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 7 to 18 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)).

Taxes

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Marshall Islands) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

Corporation Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief (China) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Brunei Darussalam) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Spain) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (India) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 16 July, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Albania) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Panama) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Norway) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.
	That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Netherlands) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 12 September, be approved.

Taxes

That the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Isle of Man) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.

Capital Gains Tax

That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Jersey) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved
	That the draft International Tax Enforcement (Guernsey) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 25 October, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No.118(6)).

Betting, Gaming and Lotteries

That the draft Categories of Gaming Machine (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 15 October, be approved. —(Claire Perry.)
	The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 4 December (Standing Order No. 41A).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (4 DECEMBER)

Ordered,
	That at the sitting on Wednesday 4 December paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to the Motion in the name of Edward Miliband as if the day were an Opposition Day; proceedings on the Motion may continue, though opposed, for three hours and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Mr Lansley.)

ADJOURNMENT (FEBRUARY, EASTER, MAY DAY, WHITSUN, SUMMER, CONFERENCE RECESS, NOVEMBER AND CHRISTMAS)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
	That this House—
	(1) at its rising on Thursday 13 February 2014, do adjourn until Monday 24 February 2014;
	(2) at its rising on Thursday 10 April 2014, do adjourn until Monday 28 April 2014;
	(3) at its rising on Thursday 1 May 2014, do adjourn until Tuesday 6 May 2014;
	(4) at its rising on Thursday 22 May 2014, do adjourn until Monday 2 June 2014;
	(5) at its rising on Tuesday 22 July 2014, do adjourn until Monday 1 September 2014;
	(6) at its rising on Thursday 11 September 2014, do adjourn until Monday 13 October 2014;
	(7) at its rising on Tuesday 11 November 2014, do adjourn until Monday 17 November 2014; and
	(8) at its rising on Thursday 18 December 2014, do adjourn until Monday 5 January 2015.—(Mr Lansley.)
	Question agreed to.

DEATHS IN CUSTODY (BLACK PEOPLE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Charles Walker: On 27 June, I was invited by Matilda MacAttram, of Black Mental Health UK, to attend a conference in Wolverhampton. I did not know what to expect, but this was a woman I liked and trusted immensely, so I travelled up to Wolverhampton for a conference on deaths in custody. It was an extraordinary, moving and profound occasion. The conference comprised men and women, most of whom had lost sons, grandsons and nephews in custody, either in a mental health or a police setting. They bore their grief with great dignity and fortitude, but there was huge upset and anger in the room at how they had been treated by the establishment, by the system. I shall come to that in a moment.
	Many relatives of the deceased bore witness to their treatment at the hands of the state and of authorities that we should trust. It was gruelling to hear. I am afraid that much of the commentary focused on the treatment meted out by certain police officers and the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I do not want this to be an attack on the police, so I want to say this now: there were many senior police officers at the conference, and the pain was etched on their faces as they listened to the experiences that families had been put through by some of their colleagues in the police force. It was a terribly moving day, but as I said, there were some very good police officers there. The police must be part of the solution, so we need to take them with us.
	African-Caribbeans account for about 3% of the population of this country, but approximately 20% of deaths in custody. This has been a running sore and an open wound for 30 years, and it is incumbent on us, the political class, to address it, because if we do not, whatever side of the House we are on, we have no hope of engaging with this community constructively. They have lost trust in us. When I was preparing for this debate, I talked to several journalists, and one of them said, “But Mr Walker, isn’t it just about racism? Isn’t this an issue of racism?”, and I said, “Well, racism is an ugly, ugly word. It is a word I do not want to ascribe to people I do not know or institutions I am not experienced of”. But let me say this: for the past 30 years, since I became an adult, I have been aware of grieving black families on the steps of courts or inquests flashing across my television screen. I have seen the faces of those families and the young men they are mourning flash across my television screen, and up until this point I have chosen to do nothing. Now I am standing up and trying to do something. I may want to ask others this question, but I have to answer it: why, for 25 or 30 years, did I do nothing? Until I answer that question satisfactorily, I will not cast aspersions on others.
	Another person said, “But Charles, you are talking about deaths in custody. You are a white male, why are you talking specifically about black people?” Well, I feel there is something very egregious about the treatment of black people in custody and detained environments. Any death in custody is regrettable, sad and tragic, but I am speaking as a parent because I think about what
	would happen if it were my son or—hopefully—when I am a grandfather, my grandson. It would be too much to bear.
	I have been helped to prepare for tonight by some fabulous people—I have mentioned Matilda MacAttram, and Lord Victor Adebowale has done great work with the police on restraint and how we look after people in a mental health crisis in a detained environment. I also pay tribute to Deborah Coles of Inquest who has been extraordinarily generous in the time she has given me when preparing for this debate. I know that I will not do this subject justice this evening, but at least I can start to do my bit.
	We must address the whole system of inquests. In June I met families in Wolverhampton who had waited six, seven or eight years for an inquest into the death of their child, their brother. That is wholly unacceptable. I know the Government are committed to holding inquests in good time, but many families are still waiting for two or three years. We must ensure that inquests happen in good time, but an inquest is only as good as the information presented to it, so we must ensure that inquests deal with good information.
	We must address the fact that police officers are not required to answer questions put to them by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. That is simply ridiculous; I am aware that many senior police officers in the Association of Chief Police Officers believe it is a nonsense and needs to be addressed. We must also have equality of arms. When there is a death in detention, the various parties of the state have legal representation—the mental health trust, the police, the chief constable may have legal representation, all funded by the taxpayer. The family of the deceased, however, will too often have their finances gone through with a fine toothcomb—not just the parents, but grandparents, aunts, uncles and extended family—to see whether they should pay for some or all of their legal costs. That is a disgraceful way to treat a mourning family, and if we do nothing else, it is incumbent on this House to end that inequality in arms.
	When someone dies in a mental health setting, as opposed to a police custody environment, we must ensure an independent investigation that carries the confidence of the family of the deceased and the wider community. Let us be in no doubt about the sense of anger and frustration at the current state of play. I do not know how we do this in law, but we must also end the culture of briefings. When someone dies in custody, the organisation that had responsibility for that individual’s care and safety can go into a sort of institutional meltdown and lockdown. It goes into a default position of getting its side of the story across, and the names and reputations of good young men are trashed in such a way that that becomes the accepted narrative—“Because the inquest is so far away, if we go on and paint a wholly false picture of this young man, that will become the accepted story.”
	Can one imagine how it affects a grieving family—the weaker party in all this— to see the reputation of their son, grandson or nephew destroyed, and they have no right of reply? I do not know how we do that in law, but off-the-record, unofficial briefings should be regarded as acts of gross misconduct, and those that participate in and promote them should lose their jobs.
	An issue of great importance to Black Mental Health UK is the use of face-down restraint, which is a very aggressive way of controlling someone who is distressed.
	Too often it can cause severe physical damage and can kill. We in this House should be in no doubt about the importance of this issue to those in the African-Caribbean community. They feel that it is used disproportionately on their young men, and we need to address that concern in a serious way.
	I want to go back to the need for inquests. I am dealing with one family whose son called the police—there was a domestic dispute and he felt that he and his child were being threatened—and ended up being arrested. He was taken to a detained mental health environment. His sister came to see him. He said, “Please get me out of here. If you don’t, they will kill me.” He was dead the next day. It took the family a year and a half to recover the body of their son and brother. When they did recover his body, it was beaten, bruised and covered in Taser marks. That is a tragedy. I can understand why that upsets people so much. It upsets me today and I know that it upsets my colleagues who are here for the debate.
	I do not pretend to understand the African-Caribbean community, but from the people who came to see me there is a total loss of trust in the establishment. There is a feeling that for the past 30 years we have allowed the causes of these deaths to go unaddressed. Somehow, we have turned away. The establishment has turned its back; it has chosen to walk on the other side of the road. If we are to bring the community closer to us we need to understand the sense of hurt we in this place, and the institutions of the state, have caused. The healing process needs to start at the very top. We need the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and say, “I want to hear your stories. I want to listen. I am so sorry that we allowed this to happen for so long. Please tell us your experiences and let us work together to ensure that we do not allow these injustices to continue.”
	When I left the conference in Wolverhampton on 27 June I had one overriding emotion as I sat on the train: I felt ashamed that the country I love so much, and which has given me so much, could let a group of good people down so badly. It is quite something to have that emotion at the age of 45. I always knew that we do not live in a perfect place, but I always thought that it was a good place and that, if challenged, this country did the right thing. We have not done the right thing by the African-Caribbean community. All is not lost: we have the opportunity to do the right thing. I know I have not done this subject justice, but I hope that the Government hear the growing number of voices from all communities and lead the nation to a better place.

David Lammy: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he has made his remarks on this very important issue. Does he agree that one of the great sores in this debate is not just that no police officers have been prosecuted for the many deaths—hundreds—that have taken place in the past 20 years or so, but that the police continue effectively to investigate themselves because so many IPCC staff are police officers? That issue continues to be raised consistently in relation to deaths in police custody.

Charles Walker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am aware that since 1991, although there have been nine verdicts of unlawful death passed
	down by inquest courts, there has not been a single successful prosecution. When I was at the conference at Wolverhampton and heard Dame Anne Owers of the Independent Police Complaints Commission present, I felt that perhaps the organisation was not fit for purpose. I had this terrible vision that this was the Care Quality Commission in front of me—we know that it is trying to address the failings of the past—but I felt that the IPCC was not in a good place. Now it is under new leadership, but I fear that it has so much ground to make up that it will never recover the credibility required to make it the force it should be.
	With that, I shall conclude. I know that the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is going to say a few words.

Diane Abbott: The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) has hit on one very important issue—the pain that this matter causes among communities. Deaths in custody have been an issue in the east end of London for the 25-plus years I have been a Member of Parliament. A number of names come to mind—Trevor Monerville and Shiji Lapite, for example. A number of aspects of the issue of deaths in custody cause pain in communities, one of which is the disproportionate number of such deaths in the black and the Irish communities. Another is the briefing that has always gone on in the wake of a death in custody—that the dead person had drugs in their system, for example. Then, months later, the facts emerge and we find that the briefing was completely misleading.
	There is no sadder thing—I have had to do it more times than I care to remember—than sitting with a woman who said goodbye to her son in the morning and later that night had a call from the police to say that he had died in their care. The hon. Member for Broxbourne is quite right that this is not an issue for any one community; it is an issue for the political class as a whole, which has not been prepared to listen to communities and families that remain in great pain—very often for years after these deaths happen.

Damian Green: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and, indeed, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for their powerful speeches and remarks. They are powerful because every death in police custody—irrespective of race, ethnicity or nationality—is a tragedy that this Government take very seriously. Every effort should be made by the police to ensure that those they come into contact with are treated proportionately, humanely and lawfully, and that their personal well-being is of paramount importance when they are detained against their will in whatever custody setting.
	This debate has focused particularly on the treatment of black people in police custody, and I would like to go through a number of important points that my hon. Friend made, starting with his remark that the number of black people of Afro-Caribbean origin dying in police custody is disproportionately high, when the
	overall population is taken into account. In that regard, we need to step back. Looking at custody populations as a whole, we see that there is an over-representation of black people. The reasons for this are complex and at this stage we do not fully understood them. Indeed, there appears to be an over-representation of black people across the whole of the criminal justice system. The Ministry of Justice is conducting work to look more closely at the reasons for this, identifying where there is real disproportionality in the system and seeking to develop an appropriate response to it. That is where the disproportionality lies; it is not necessarily, as in the most tragic cases, only the deaths of black people in police custody that are relevant.
	There is no statistically significant difference among those who die in custody based on membership of any particular racial or ethnic group. The IPCC statistics for 2012-13 show that there were 15 deaths in or following police custody, of which 14 were white and one was mixed race. Looking further back at the 2011-12 period, there were also 15 deaths, of which one was a black person and one of mixed race. The 2011 IPCC report on long-term deaths in police custody concluded that the ethnic breakdown of deaths in custody appeared to be broadly in line with the make-up of detainees more generally. I entirely accept that there is disproportionality in the criminal justice system, but it does not occur only in the context of deaths in custody.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne rightly raised the issue of mental health and policing. I am aware that black people are one and a half times more likely to be detained under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. In response to the fact that such a high proportion of people with mental health problems—and of all or any racial origins—are being dealt with by the police, we have introduced a series of measures to improve the way in which they are handled.
	People with mental health problems deserve care, support and treatment, particularly if they have not committed a criminal act. They have a right to expect to be treated by the health service rather than finding themselves in the hands of the police, who will always go to help in an emergency, but who are clearly not trained as mental health professionals. The Home Office has been conferring closely with the Department of Health, and we will shortly publish a concordat agreed by nearly 30 national organisations, agencies and Departments. It will provide national leadership by setting out the standard of response that people suffering mental health crises and requiring urgent care should expect, and key principles on the basis of which local health and criminal justice partners should be organised. It will leave not just the health service but the criminal justice agencies in no doubt about what is expected of them. It is precisely because a disproportionate number of black people are finding themselves sectioned under mental health legislation that the coming improvements in mental health provision will have a particular impact on those people.
	One of the standard—and perfectly correct—complaints is that too often the police are relied on to transport people who would be better transported by ambulance. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives is drawing up a national protocol on the transport of
	people suffering mental health crises—section 136 detainees —which I hope and expect will act as a catalyst for wider change and improvements.
	The underlying point made by my hon. Friend was that any death in custody is one too many. Of course there needs to be continuous scrutiny, and work of that nature is now overseen by the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody. The council was established in 2009, and was initially intended to exist for three years. However, we have demonstrated our commitment to this essential work by agreeing to fund it for a further three years.

Richard Fuller: My right hon. Friend has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about a long-term trend. He talks of changes happening, but, given that the trend has been continuing for a long time, can he give us an assurance that change will indeed come? Change is often promised, but it rarely comes into effect. I think that tonight’s debate is about change actually occurring, rather than being promised.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend has made a valid point. I hope to explain to him in a moment about the changes that are happening and those that have already happened, but let me first say a little more about the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody, because it is an extremely important institution. As well as a practitioner and stakeholder group, it has an independent advisory panel on deaths in custody. The panel has just created a two-year research project for the University of Greenwich, which will deal systematically with a number of the current problems. The university will conduct a review of the role of mental illness and deaths in all state custody, and an evaluation of the efficacy of information sharing between youth offending teams and the secure estate in relation to the assessment and management of the risk of self-harm and suicide among children and young people. Tonight’s debate, and other conversations in which I have taken part, suggest to me that I should consider whether the ethnicity of individuals who lose their lives in custody should also be included in that research project.
	Let me move on to the changes and the specifics. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne had some harsh words to say about the IPCC, which must be notified of any death that occurs in police custody. Following the investigation into the death of Sean Rigg and the findings of the Home Affairs Committee inquiry into the IPCC, it is carrying out a review into how deaths in, or following, police custody are investigated. A progress report was published in September, and the final report is due to be published next year.
	Changes are happening. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill includes new powers for the IPCC, which it has requested to strengthen its remit and functions. I agree with my hon. Friend that it has not been a perfect institution in the past. It has had failings, so we have strengthened its functions and we have increased its funding. The functions include powers to enable the IPCC to recommend and direct that a police force instigates unsatisfactory performance procedures in cases that involve death or serious injury. It will have extra resources from the police, too.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the time it has taken for the deceased to be returned to their families as a result of inquests. Under the Coroners (Investigations) Regulations 2013, which came into force in July as part of a package of reforms, coroners must release the body of the deceased for burial or cremation as soon as possible. If the coroner cannot release the body within 28 days, he or she must notify the known next of kin or personal representative of the reasons for the delay. When there is a criminal investigation into the death, there may be more than one post-mortem examination, but the coroner will make every effort for the body to be released at the earliest opportunity.
	I should also draw the House’s attention to the recent appointment of His Honour Judge Peter Thornton QC as the first chief coroner of England and Wales, who is playing a key part in setting new national standards in the coroner system. I hope that will have a direct effect on the important questions we are debating tonight.
	My hon. Friend talked about the requirement for police officers to answer questions posed to them by the IPCC. In December last year the Government brought forward emergency legislation to ensure police officers were required to attend interviews when requested by the IPCC. If we went further, as my hon. Friend suggested, and compelled police officers to answer questions in criminal investigations, that would put them in a worse position than members of the public, who have to attend but are not required to answer questions. It would seem perverse to have fewer rights for police officers than for other members of the public.
	My hon. Friend also talked about the end of face-down restraint. In health settings, this is obviously a matter for the Department of Health. I understand it plans to end its use in health settings, which I am sure will be extremely welcome to my hon. Friend.
	My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington talked about the practice of off-the-record briefings, which can often stain the reputation of someone in a way that persists even when it is unjustified. The Leveson inquiry reset and clarified the boundaries of the relationship between the police
	and the media and covered recommendations relating precisely to off-the-record briefings. The Government have accepted all the recommendations relating to the police and, together with partners, are continuing to implement them.
	My hon. Friend also talked about equality of representation. I would simply say that inquests are not trials. Unlike other proceedings for which legal aid might be available, there are no parties in inquests, only interested persons, and witnesses are not expected to present legal arguments. Legal advice and assistance before the inquest hearing via the legal help scheme is available to interested persons. Legal help can be used, for example, to assist in the preparation of a list of written questions that they wish the coroner to explore with other witnesses.
	My hon. Friend also talked about the independent investigation of deaths in NHS mental health settings, as opposed to police settings. NHS England is working to make the investigation of deaths in hospital settings more independent. The work will conclude shortly, and guidance to NHS commissioners will be published early in the new year. I hope that he can therefore see that, across the board in this sensitive and vital area, there is a significant amount of change.
	I want to conclude by reassuring the House that the Government are working to ensure that people are treated proportionately and humanely when in police custody. The number of people losing their lives in police custody has fallen. In 1998-99, there were 49 deaths; last year there were 15, and there were the same number this year. However, there is still a lot of work to be done. I can absolutely assure the House that, through the Ministerial Council on Deaths in Custody, and through working with other Government Departments, campaign groups and, indeed, the families of the deceased, I will make sure that this issue remains high on the Government’s list of priorities.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.